• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Admiral Quelch is quite clearly a visionary who's wise words should have been headed in the inter-war years.
ja.gif


If the British Army is destroyed it is unfortunate, if the RAF is destroyed it is a disaster however if the Royal Navy is destroyed Britain is lost. This new tonnage is just a start, much more is needed!
 
El Pip said:
Admiral Quelch is quite clearly a visionary who's wise words should have been headed in the inter-war years.

Sadly, the technology did not exist and other things were given priority namely, an airforce and an army worthy of the name.

It was rather careless of the navy to leave so many powerful ships protecting our oh so valuable Caribbean colonies. Sugar and bananas are so vital crops. Whoever contributed to the weakening of the Channel fleet should have a posting to one of our Antarctic bases.

Haven't the Bismarck and Tirpitz limped back to home ports? Send in the RAF to destroy them.
 
Vann the Red said:
Splendid to see so much tonnage laid down at once. Long, long past due. It is a testament to the popularity of the crown that there hasn't been more grumbling over the state of the Navy. What game level ships are these, Draco?

Couldn't agree more! Bravo! :D

G-3 is the improved BC (lvl 4--1938 tech). Though with those weapons, armor & speed it's really more like USS Iowa, BB lvl 5 or 6 territory.
 
Building those G-3s is a very good idea. As an island nation, England should focus on maintaining it's navy over other priorities. As long as their navy is top notch, having an good army or a good air force can take secondary considerations.
 
Improving and replenishing the Royal Navy can only be for the better. In our timeline, construction of cruisers and battleships was curtailed because the armor and gun-making capacity were needed for the Army and Airforce. Here, I agree that the Navy is properly due some new construction.

Your technical precis on the new ships is admirable. Do you have a copy of Siegfried Breyer's 'Battleships and Battlecruisers'?


On the new ships:

The Royal Navy tended to prefer large numbers of smaller cruisers, to cover the trade lanes ('Leander', 'Arethusa') with a small number of heavy-hitters ('County' class). These new heavy cruisers (comparable to the American standard 'Baltimore' class heavy cruiser, I would say) are definitely inteded to be heavy fighting units, not light scouts. I do question whether the RN would develop a triple turret - they hated the idea and refused to use it in the 'County' class for various technical reasons. The Japanese went to the extreme of using 5 twin turrets on a heavy cruiser rather than design a triple. Perhaps American success with triple-gun turrets was a factor, and perhaps some technical information changed hands. :)

8" gunned cruisers were intended for engagements at longer range; 6" gunned cruisers were meant for close-in, rapid fire - especially fine for killing destroyers. 6" ammo, being lighter, simply isn't as accurate as an 8" shell at longer range. The 'City' class (and the 'Colony' class), armed with 12-6" guns in four triple turrets, and the American 'Brooklyn' class, with 15-6" guns, could put out a torrent of shells - more than one shell per second. The 'County' class, with 8-8", could fire about half as many but the 8" weighed twice as much as a 6". Short version: for close engagement use 6" and for long-range (and penetration power) use 8". So the choice of an 8" weapon for these new cruisers tells us how the Royal Navy intends to use them - a classic, open-range gun battle. Here's hoping the weather in the Channel and North Sea co-operates. :)

As originally designed the '1921' battlecruisers were big, structurally weak, thinly armored and expensive. Your proposed version makes a lot more sense. The development of high-pressure propulsion allowed fast battleships with less tonnage devoted to propulsion plant. The re-built 'Renown' and 'Repulse' saved almost a quarter of the weight when their engines were replaced, as I recall. 'Nelson' and 'Rodney' came along just too early to get the new engines and suffered from slow speed and high maintenance. They also were unhandy - that tall tower bridge, so far aft, acted like a sail. The G3 design, with bridge amidships, is far superior. I do not think the 36-knot speed will make the final design cut; with radar and aircraft, the tactical value of high speed is much degraded, and weather conditions in the North Sea/North Atlantic make it unlikely you could use that high speed in anything but easy seas. 30 to 33 knots would make hull design easier, free up a little tonnage and in no way compromise their fighting power.

The thickness of armor will be important, but placement, area covered and distribution will be more critical. By this point the RN hasn't turned out a good battleship since the 'Queen Elizabeth' class, but the 'King George V' class were excellent, and these new ships should be as fine since they come along at the same time (or a little later).

One more note: one reason for reverting to a 14" armament in the KGV class was to get a faster rate of fire. 'Nelson' and 'Rodney' were rather slow-firing, compared to more modern Japanese and US designs (everyone was better than the Italians). I'm not saying 'Nelson' and 'Rodney' had bad gun mounts - they were comparable to other ships of the same vintage (US 'Maryland' class). But later designs - KGV, 'North Carolina', 'Bismarck' - could pound out shells about 25% faster. Again, a little technical assistance 'cross the pond' would do very well here - assuming the Royal Navy doesn't think it has all the answers, and assuming the Americans have built the 'North Carolina' and floow-on classes.

At 53,000 tons these four will weigh in roughly at 'Bismarck' tonnage, bigger than anything else in the world except the US 'Iowa' class and the Japanese 'Yamato'. They should be fine ships, and despite the unconventional silhouette they should be fast, seaworthy (high freeboard) and pack a wallop. I predict they will be much beloved by the navy and the nation.

I apologize for the lengthy techno-geek nature of this post; I am a raving fanatic for the minutae of naval technology. :D
 
Director said:
Improving and replenishing the Royal Navy can only be for the better. In our timeline, construction of cruisers and battleships was curtailed because the armor and gun-making capacity were needed for the Army and Airforce. Here, I agree that the Navy is properly due some new construction.

Your technical precis on the new ships is admirable. Do you have a copy of Siegfried Breyer's 'Battleships and Battlecruisers'?


On the new ships:

The Royal Navy tended to prefer large numbers of smaller cruisers, to cover the trade lanes ('Leander', 'Arethusa') with a small number of heavy-hitters ('County' class). These new heavy cruisers (comparable to the American standard 'Baltimore' class heavy cruiser, I would say) are definitely inteded to be heavy fighting units, not light scouts. I do question whether the RN would develop a triple turret - they hated the idea and refused to use it in the 'County' class for various technical reasons. The Japanese went to the extreme of using 5 twin turrets on a heavy cruiser rather than design a triple. Perhaps American success with triple-gun turrets was a factor, and perhaps some technical information changed hands. :)

8" gunned cruisers were intended for engagements at longer range; 6" gunned cruisers were meant for close-in, rapid fire - especially fine for killing destroyers. 6" ammo, being lighter, simply isn't as accurate as an 8" shell at longer range. The 'City' class (and the 'Colony' class), armed with 12-6" guns in four triple turrets, and the American 'Brooklyn' class, with 15-6" guns, could put out a torrent of shells - more than one shell per second. The 'County' class, with 8-8", could fire about half as many but the 8" weighed twice as much as a 6". Short version: for close engagement use 6" and for long-range (and penetration power) use 8". So the choice of an 8" weapon for these new cruisers tells us how the Royal Navy intends to use them - a classic, open-range gun battle. Here's hoping the weather in the Channel and North Sea co-operates. :)

As originally designed the '1921' battlecruisers were big, structurally weak, thinly armored and expensive. Your proposed version makes a lot more sense. The development of high-pressure propulsion allowed fast battleships with less tonnage devoted to propulsion plant. The re-built 'Renown' and 'Repulse' saved almost a quarter of the weight when their engines were replaced, as I recall. 'Nelson' and 'Rodney' came along just too early to get the new engines and suffered from slow speed and high maintenance. They also were unhandy - that tall tower bridge, so far aft, acted like a sail. The G3 design, with bridge amidships, is far superior. I do not think the 36-knot speed will make the final design cut; with radar and aircraft, the tactical value of high speed is much degraded, and weather conditions in the North Sea/North Atlantic make it unlikely you could use that high speed in anything but easy seas. 30 to 33 knots would make hull design easier, free up a little tonnage and in no way compromise their fighting power.

At 53,000 tons these four will weigh in roughly at 'Bismarck' tonnage, bigger than anything else in the world except the US 'Iowa' class and the Japanese 'Yamato'. They should be fine ships, and despite the unconventional silhouette they should be fast, seaworthy (high freeboard) and pack a wallop. I predict they will be much beloved by the navy and the nation.

I apologize for the lengthy techno-geek nature of this post; I am a raving fanatic for the minutae of naval technology. :D

Actually As I understand it... The Mogami class Cruisers were originally designed as London Treaty Light Cruisers... Unlike the Washington Treaty which limited Heavy Cruisers to 10,000 tons and 8" guns, The London Treaty of 1930 IIRC Gave no tonnage limit but limited the guns on new cruisers at 6" (At the same time restricting Capital Ship Guns at 14") Mogami was originally thus built as a 12,000 Ton Light Cruiser with 15 X 6" Guns in 5 triple turrets but designed so the Barbettes could and did end up holding 10 X 8" guns in twin turrets.

As to the speed reduction in the North Sea and North Atlantic... I think it is clear these ships are intended as much to put Japan on notice that the British Empire is fully prepared to take the war to all enemies and a warning to the Empire of Japan to stay clear of Great Britain's interests as to combat the Kreigsmarine or the Italian Navy... In the Pacific their speed should be less hampered.

I Do agree with others that the RN needs to build some carriers... especially in the Pacific .. No knocking the Royal Airforce but coordination between Naval and airforces always seems to be complicated so it is best to have Naval aircover for those Beautiful Battlecruisers if they are to operate in the Far east but these should be Illustrious class CVs.
 
The London Treaty was one of those compromises intended to give everyone what they most wanted. The Americans got a cap on tonnages and the Royal Navy won the right to build a lot of cruisers by building a lot of affordable small ships. What the authors THOUGHT would happen - a moderation in ship numbers, size and power - did not happen. Given a maximum size, naval planners went immediately to - and over - the Washington Treaty 10,000 ton limit for cruisers and 35,000 tons for battleships. When the cap on size was removed ships began to grow again. Almost none of the 'Treaty' cruisers in any navy actually met treaty limits. Some (like 'Prinz Eugen') were 50% or more over-weight. The few that were close to or on the limit ('County' class) usually kept their weight down by shedding armor, a perilous solution.

The Mogami and Brooklyn classes (and the Cleveland, Colony and City classes) were, as I understand it, designed partly to be 'destroyer-killers' and partly built just because 'the other guy has one so I want one too'. They were intended to be as capable as a heavy cruiser while keeping to the 6" gun size, capitalizing on the faster rate of fire available to 6" guns (the shells are smaller and easier to handle, the guns weigh less so the ship can carry more of them, etc). Being on the receiving end of a cruiser firing flat-out is not fun, as the Battle of the River Plate and the night actions in the Med and Pacific show. At 'hugger-mugger' ranges of 5000-10,000 yards a cruiser can penetrate all but the heaviest battleship plate and shred the unprotected areas. On one memorable (wargaming) occasion I steamed out of the fog with four cruisers and found Tirpitz and Scharnhorst at 8000 yards. I lost some cruisers... but Tirpitz and Scharnhorst were on fire, listing, wrecked topside and had large holes in bow and stern.

I mention this action to point out that ships almost never fight on equal terms. You fight with what you have, where you have it, and a few cheap ships can carry the day against a stronger and more expensive opponent (Battle of the River Plate) or force the enemy to change his plans (Komandorski Islands).

You are correct that these ship designs show that all treaty limits can be circumvented with a little ingenuity. Or, in the case of the Japanese and Germans, with ingenuity coupled to bald-faced lies. :p

I do think the Royal Navy is not likely to approve a design unless it will perform well in the North Sea/North Atlantic. Home water requirements will always trump their Pacific commitments. At the most they might add airconditioning for tropic service. If these battleships are intended solely for Pacific service they are a criminal waste of resources that should go to carriers. If they are for home waters, or general purpose use, they have some value.

My real point about the 36-knot speed was that it requires too much and returns very little. The 'Iowa' class managed to make 35 but only by adopting an extreme hull form; other US battleships with the same main and secondary armament made 27 knots on 15,000 fewer tons and a hull that was at least 100 feet shorter. Every knot of additional speed means a HUGE increase in horsepower, and/or an increase in ship length (which adds to the soft, unarmored areas open to shell-fire). It is likely that common sense will over-rule the 36-knot idealists and the final design will make 30-32 knots, which is still as fast or faster than contemporaries (Bismarck 29 to 30 knots, King George V 28 to 30, North Carolina 28, Littorio 30, Yamato 28).

I agree that carriers should be the backbone of any WW2 fleet. A possible re-design of these BBs would be to remove the center turret and pack in four extra 5.25" twin mounts plus all the light AA possible. A number of 'County' class light cruisers had a 6" triple turret removed and extra AA added. A second re-design would see all four converted completely to carriers, supported by AA cruisers.
 
If you want a battle fleet to move at the same speed and top speed for your light ships is 36 knots, your battleships, battlecruisers and carriers have to able to travel at that speed. The idea updates the "fleet-in-being" concept with the need to protect a far-flung empire and make a statement of Imperial power.

I don't know how many ships, Draco intends to build of the two new classes of ships. The navy did have one or two carriers, based in the Med that were not really of the size to project Imperial power. The size of carrier that those battlecruisers, converted, would make are probably being researched even now.
 
Director said:
The London Treaty was one of those compromises intended to give everyone what they most wanted. The Americans got a cap on tonnages and the Royal Navy won the right to build a lot of cruisers by building a lot of affordable small ships. What the authors THOUGHT would happen - a moderation in ship numbers, size and power - did not happen. Given a maximum size, naval planners went immediately to - and over - the Washington Treaty 10,000 ton limit for cruisers and 35,000 tons for battleships. When the cap on size was removed ships began to grow again. Almost none of the 'Treaty' cruisers in any navy actually met treaty limits. Some (like 'Prinz Eugen') were 50% or more over-weight. The few that were close to or on the limit ('County' class) usually kept their weight down by shedding armor, a perilous solution.

The Mogami and Brooklyn classes (and the Cleveland, Colony and City classes) were, as I understand it, designed partly to be 'destroyer-killers' and partly built just because 'the other guy has one so I want one too'. They were intended to be as capable as a heavy cruiser while keeping to the 6" gun size, capitalizing on the faster rate of fire available to 6" guns (the shells are smaller and easier to handle, the guns weigh less so the ship can carry more of them, etc). Being on the receiving end of a cruiser firing flat-out is not fun, as the Battle of the River Plate and the night actions in the Med and Pacific show. At 'hugger-mugger' ranges of 5000-10,000 yards a cruiser can penetrate all but the heaviest battleship plate and shred the unprotected areas. On one memorable (wargaming) occasion I steamed out of the fog with four cruisers and found Tirpitz and Scharnhorst at 8000 yards. I lost some cruisers... but Tirpitz and Scharnhorst were on fire, listing, wrecked topside and had large holes in bow and stern.

I mention this action to point out that ships almost never fight on equal terms. You fight with what you have, where you have it, and a few cheap ships can carry the day against a stronger and more expensive opponent (Battle of the River Plate) or force the enemy to change his plans (Komandorski Islands).

You are correct that these ship designs show that all treaty limits can be circumvented with a little ingenuity. Or, in the case of the Japanese and Germans, with ingenuity coupled to bald-faced lies. :p

I do think the Royal Navy is not likely to approve a design unless it will perform well in the North Sea/North Atlantic. Home water requirements will always trump their Pacific commitments. At the most they might add airconditioning for tropic service. If these battleships are intended solely for Pacific service they are a criminal waste of resources that should go to carriers. If they are for home waters, or general purpose use, they have some value.

My real point about the 36-knot speed was that it requires too much and returns very little. The 'Iowa' class managed to make 35 but only by adopting an extreme hull form; other US battleships with the same main and secondary armament made 27 knots on 15,000 fewer tons and a hull that was at least 100 feet shorter. Every knot of additional speed means a HUGE increase in horsepower, and/or an increase in ship length (which adds to the soft, unarmored areas open to shell-fire). It is likely that common sense will over-rule the 36-knot idealists and the final design will make 30-32 knots, which is still as fast or faster than contemporaries (Bismarck 29 to 30 knots, King George V 28 to 30, North Carolina 28, Littorio 30, Yamato 28).

I agree that carriers should be the backbone of any WW2 fleet. A possible re-design of these BBs would be to remove the center turret and pack in four extra 5.25" twin mounts plus all the light AA possible. A number of 'County' class light cruisers had a 6" triple turret removed and extra AA added. A second re-design would see all four converted completely to carriers, supported by AA cruisers.

In terms of speed... 33 knots is quite acceptable and the real advantage thus in a 33 knot Iowa over a 28 Knot North Carolina is that the Iowa is better suited in speed and range to keep pace with the Fast Carriers. It is noted that the subsequent Montana class would have been a 28 knot design had they been built. I merely meant to note that when sailing the calmer Pacific waters... These Saints might be able to coax out a little more speed than the rough North Atlantic would permit. Certainly speed at the expense of adequate protection is not a good trade off.
 
I must say I am rather impressed by this technical discussion. If you understand the nooks-and-crannies of these ships, it helps enhance appreciation for these naval engagements. :cool:
 
Well, I'm confident that Draco will choose wisely. He's done well so far. :D


Chief Ragusa raises a good point, but I still believe the extreme high speed is not worth the 10,000 to 15,000 tons of machinery that could be required.

KiMaSa, we agree. :cool:
 
A lot has happened during my absence I see, a lot of wonderful writing here Draco. Really impressive work, and what a victory the RN managed to win, great work. I have to say I am impressed by your development and I think these new BC will do wonderful and they will be the pride of the navy in the years to come, but don’t you forget the carriers. When the Japanese attacks you won’t stand a chance in hell of winning sea battles if you don’t have any carriers around… Just remember what they did in real life to British warships in that area without air protection. I know the navy likes big guns and firepower, but I think it is very important that you don’t forget the carriers….
Again I have to say, impressive and wonderful writing and I am looking forward to more :)
 
KiMaSa said:
In terms of speed... 33 knots is quite acceptable and the real advantage thus in a 33 knot Iowa over a 28 Knot North Carolina is that the Iowa is better suited in speed and range to keep pace with the Fast Carriers. It is noted that the subsequent Montana class would have been a 28 knot design had they been built. I merely meant to note that when sailing the calmer Pacific waters... These Saints might be able to coax out a little more speed than the rough North Atlantic would permit. Certainly speed at the expense of adequate protection is not a good trade off.


yes it is, but your all forgetting WHY the BB's became escorts for fast carriers.

they had no other use!!!!!

other than fire support for amphibious assaults they were a complete waste of time, money and energy which would have been better used on more carriers and escort CRUISERS.

i'm not quite sure what these 'saints' are for?? what will be they're function?
seems like too much too late, i mean, they won't be completed for about 18 months yeah? too late to do anything.

oh, and while i hate to critcise you Draco, you got it so wrong with that award ceremony. far too much given to far too many people. none of them earned the VC.

i'm not sure who but someone asked what would have earned one?? that moment at the end of the battle when they headed back home? if he'd have turned around and gone after another Destroyer, with his MTB in the shape it was, THAT would have earned a VC.

and if anyone thinks i'm being harsh, remember the battle of the river plate (OTL). when HMS Exeter had ALL her turrets destroyed and only two torpedoes left (on the wrong side) her captain swung the ship around and tried to ram Graff Spee, and all HE got was a DSO.

and as for storeyville getting knighted?? hell nooo!!!!!!
people seem to forget that THIS IS THEIR JOB! it's what they're paid to do.
you don't get knighted for coming up with a plan (brilliant as it was) it's your responsibility to do anyway.
medals are deserved, yes, but that was too much. i agree with El pip. sorry man.

later, caff
 
caffran said:
Yaaa!!! I've had too much CAFFIENE!!! kekekekekekeke!!!

later, caff
No energy drinks for you! One year!
 
Of course the navy milked it for all it was worth. The navy built up unstoppable momentum to have parliament vote the funds for new ships.

If you look at the number of honours awarded to those compared to the number of combatants, you will find that it does not approach Rorke's Drift.

Had the Exeter succeeded in ramming, the captain would have been knighted. If he 'd sunk the ship, he'd have received a peerage.

Those otherwise useless BBs were all that saved the Anzio landing.
 
*Rises from the deep to delurk*

Have to agree with Caff and El Pip here. Way too many top level medals given for this action. As it stands no VC's should have been awarded for the action. Knighting Storeyville is okay and in keeping with the morale and propoganda war but you have to remember that the Brits are VERY parsimous (sp?) with their awards. Probably due to the liberal leanings of the population in general. The British establishment has always disliked the armed forces (read Kipling's "Tommy" for proof of the general attitude) and thus sets higher standards than most other nations.

One thing that many Brit soldiers disliked about the Seps when they finally entered the war was the fact that a GI, who had seen no combat, would often have a chestful of ribbons, none of which actually meant anything.

Otherwise an excellent piece of writing. The Motor Boat crews definitely lived up to their "Glory Boy" image in this action and paid a heavy price for it too.

*sinks back into the murk from which he arose*
 
Why build the Saints? Well First in this history and in real life, Carriers have not yet by this time taken the mantle as Queens of the Fleet... Neither in their accomplishments, nor in the hearts and minds of the people. To many HMS Hood WAS the Royal Navy and her loss punctuated the notion that the British Empire had passed its height and would only begin to go down hill from there on out. The Saints ; from a political standpoint, are an exclamation of the Empire's resolve to remain strong, proud, invincible and second to no one. No other ship type at this 1940 date can make that exclamation.

From a Millitary standpoint, The Fast Battleships were designed not just to act with the carriers (Where they DID serve well) but to act as a fast wing of battle and as a counter to the Japanese Kongo class and the actions of the Battleship Washington against Kirishima were hardly worthless as contrasted by putting the AA cruiser Atlanta up against Hiei where; while heavier cruisers such as San Francisco DID hurt the Japanese ship, Atlanta was simply where she never should have been.

In the Atlantic, Carriers would not have been an answer to KMS Scharnhorst. It took a Battleship to take her down. And in the Pacific at Surigao Strait the old Battlewagons showed their metal and the Iowas would have done the same at San Bernadino Strait had Task Force 34 actually been detatched by Admiral Halsey instead of trying to chase the doomed and toothless Japanese Northern Force.

Again, from a 21st century standpoint with all the available hindsight... Carriers are simply destined to become greater than any Battleship could be... but in 1940, carriers were still working to earn the status as the new queens of the fleet. Certainly the old stringbags need to be replaced before the British Carriers can rise to claim their mantle.

As to the awards... I think in intensity the Destroyer action at Narvik is comparable to the Battle of the Channel and though the awards were less numerous... A Victoria Cross was among those awarded... Of course if King George reads the reports and says "Give the Victoria Cross..." I doubt many will argue his decision. :)

Oh? And Belisarious? : "One thing that many Brit soldiers disliked about the Seps when they finally entered the war was the fact that a GI, who had seen no combat, would often have a chestful of ribbons, none of which actually meant anything."

Seps? :p :)
 
Last edited: