Submarines, where are the submarines?
It ought not to be decisive engagement that matters, but fatal raiding...
It ought not to be decisive engagement that matters, but fatal raiding...
-
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.
Did you come up with Captain Horne and his rousing book all by yourself? A cursory search on Wikipedia brings no hits on the Captain's name or the book's title. If so: nicely created rationale for the British naval developments. It sounds credible. Certainly, given the potential opponents for the Royal Navy, it seems perfectly adequate to have masses of cruisers rather than a few powerful battleships.
With regard to the American ships: would the disparity between American battleship and British protected cruiser be as great as that between ironclad and frigate (or whatever the sail ships of the Civil War were - sorry, not exactly my forte), or will a horde of protected cruiser have a realistic shot at taking down a battleship? If they do have a shot, then the Americans need to build quite a few battleships, if they ever want to have a credible deterrent versus the Royal Navy. If protected cruisers still don't stand a chance of challenging a battleship - well, then the British better hope there's never another situation like Mexico rearing its ugly head...
With regard to the American ships: would the disparity between American battleship and British protected cruiser be as great as that between ironclad and frigate (or whatever the sail ships of the Civil War were - sorry, not exactly my forte), or will a horde of protected cruiser have a realistic shot at taking down a battleship? If they do have a shot, then the Americans need to build quite a few battleships, if they ever want to have a credible deterrent versus the Royal Navy. If protected cruisers still don't stand a chance of challenging a battleship - well, then the British better hope there's never another situation like Mexico rearing its ugly head...
Another good update - well done on making the AI's original approach to naval planning make some sort of sense.
Also thanks for the information in your last reply - it makes the situation vis-a-vis the Royal Navy a lot clearer. Regarding my "Tirpitz" comment, I'm sure you don't want a confrontation with Britain, and I'm fairly sure Makhearne doesn't either (unless Frost gets ensconced in Whitehall), but building a navy that has no purpose except to challenge the British is a plan that can run away with itself, as Tirpitz and his supporters found out. Makhearne's argument is even more powerful in reverse - the US can survive losing Borneo, Madagascar, Zanzibar and whatever other bits and pieces Ambi-Bey has picked up, the British Empire cannot survive losing control of the sealanes to Canada and India (not mention Australia, Argentina and the other places their food comes from). A US fleet that's strong enough to challenge the RN on the high seas is precious close to a threat the British simply cannot ignore - and suddenly you're in a building race with an opponent who will throw everything into the pot to beat you. But, admittedly there's a long way to go before this becomes an issue. Judging by your table the British AI seems to be building to about the Six-Power Standard at the moment.
Also judging by your table, the British AI's focus on cruisers actually makes a lot of sense. Unless I'm misreading, the Royal Navy has 42 armoured big ships (MO & IC), you have 16 - and the rest of the world has a flat 0. Against wooden ships and light raiders a cruiser is as lethal as a battleship, faster, cheaper and more flexible. Battleships exist to fight battleships - unless the RN is planning a war with the US, upgrading the battlefleet is just increasing the overkill.
Regarding ship designs - I'm not sure what definitions Vicky uses for categorising ships. For my money, I wouldn't call Devastation or even the 1879 Dreadnought "pre-dreadnoughts" - I'd say the pre-dreadnoughts start in the late 1880s with the Admirals or even in the 1890s with the Royal Sovereigns. But if Devastation isn't a pre-dreadnought then what is she? Turret Ironclad? Ocean-going Monitor? (In-game, does the AI have the tech for pre-dreadnoughts and is refusing to build them, or has it just not researched them yet?)
As for Captain vs Devastation - remember that Captain's forecastle and poop were added late in the design in an attempt to improve seakeeping. Mentally strip them (and the flying deck) off and suddenly you have Devastation with masts and a significantly higher freeboard - which together proved fatal. But the low freeboard monitors were notoriously unseaworthy, and in the 1870s coal-hungry engines and the lack of overseas fuelling bases were though to make sails essential for truly ocean-going ships.
Putting all the bits together to make a viable turret battleship was a major challenge for the period - the 1879 Dreadnought, in contrast to her more famous successor, spent most of a decade on the stocks while they tweaked the design. And while they were doing it they were still turning out old-style broadside cruising ironclads like the Alexandra as well as smaller monitors for coast defence. Even after Devastation and Dreadnought showed what could be done, they still went "backwards" to mid-turret designs like Inflexible and Agamemnon. It wasn't until the barbette ships came along that they cracked the problem of putting pivoting guns on a full-height hull.
Also thanks for the information in your last reply - it makes the situation vis-a-vis the Royal Navy a lot clearer. Regarding my "Tirpitz" comment, I'm sure you don't want a confrontation with Britain, and I'm fairly sure Makhearne doesn't either (unless Frost gets ensconced in Whitehall), but building a navy that has no purpose except to challenge the British is a plan that can run away with itself, as Tirpitz and his supporters found out. Makhearne's argument is even more powerful in reverse - the US can survive losing Borneo, Madagascar, Zanzibar and whatever other bits and pieces Ambi-Bey has picked up, the British Empire cannot survive losing control of the sealanes to Canada and India (not mention Australia, Argentina and the other places their food comes from). A US fleet that's strong enough to challenge the RN on the high seas is precious close to a threat the British simply cannot ignore - and suddenly you're in a building race with an opponent who will throw everything into the pot to beat you. But, admittedly there's a long way to go before this becomes an issue. Judging by your table the British AI seems to be building to about the Six-Power Standard at the moment.
Also judging by your table, the British AI's focus on cruisers actually makes a lot of sense. Unless I'm misreading, the Royal Navy has 42 armoured big ships (MO & IC), you have 16 - and the rest of the world has a flat 0. Against wooden ships and light raiders a cruiser is as lethal as a battleship, faster, cheaper and more flexible. Battleships exist to fight battleships - unless the RN is planning a war with the US, upgrading the battlefleet is just increasing the overkill.
Regarding ship designs - I'm not sure what definitions Vicky uses for categorising ships. For my money, I wouldn't call Devastation or even the 1879 Dreadnought "pre-dreadnoughts" - I'd say the pre-dreadnoughts start in the late 1880s with the Admirals or even in the 1890s with the Royal Sovereigns. But if Devastation isn't a pre-dreadnought then what is she? Turret Ironclad? Ocean-going Monitor? (In-game, does the AI have the tech for pre-dreadnoughts and is refusing to build them, or has it just not researched them yet?)
As for Captain vs Devastation - remember that Captain's forecastle and poop were added late in the design in an attempt to improve seakeeping. Mentally strip them (and the flying deck) off and suddenly you have Devastation with masts and a significantly higher freeboard - which together proved fatal. But the low freeboard monitors were notoriously unseaworthy, and in the 1870s coal-hungry engines and the lack of overseas fuelling bases were though to make sails essential for truly ocean-going ships.
Putting all the bits together to make a viable turret battleship was a major challenge for the period - the 1879 Dreadnought, in contrast to her more famous successor, spent most of a decade on the stocks while they tweaked the design. And while they were doing it they were still turning out old-style broadside cruising ironclads like the Alexandra as well as smaller monitors for coast defence. Even after Devastation and Dreadnought showed what could be done, they still went "backwards" to mid-turret designs like Inflexible and Agamemnon. It wasn't until the barbette ships came along that they cracked the problem of putting pivoting guns on a full-height hull.
Thank you merrick for turning up the pronographic intensity from a mild softcore to full on hardcore.
Seriously, though, it's interesting to read. Waaay past my own knowledge of the subject, but hey, how else do you learn anything new?
Some nice real life details, as well as a rather troubling analysis of the game world. The way you write it, the US and Britain seem pretty much predestined to become adversaries, unless the US deliberately stunts its own naval growth - which, given the whole Mexico mishap, seems unlikely to happen.
Seriously, though, it's interesting to read. Waaay past my own knowledge of the subject, but hey, how else do you learn anything new?
Some nice real life details, as well as a rather troubling analysis of the game world. The way you write it, the US and Britain seem pretty much predestined to become adversaries, unless the US deliberately stunts its own naval growth - which, given the whole Mexico mishap, seems unlikely to happen.
Great series of updates. Loving the justifications for the naval arms race.
I am part way through Winston Churchill's history of the First World War (& the build up to it) ("The World Crisis 1911-1918"). That has great detail on what it feels to be on the inside of a naval arms race, as he was in the Admiralty during the years before the war. Interesting on the technical questions (e.g. swapping to oil to allow fast battleships) and the political ones (fighting for the funds to match German shipbuilding AND build up the supply chain to support oil-fired ships). It is also great to read history written in the 20s and 30s, so free from hindsight about WWII.
I am part way through Winston Churchill's history of the First World War (& the build up to it) ("The World Crisis 1911-1918"). That has great detail on what it feels to be on the inside of a naval arms race, as he was in the Admiralty during the years before the war. Interesting on the technical questions (e.g. swapping to oil to allow fast battleships) and the political ones (fighting for the funds to match German shipbuilding AND build up the supply chain to support oil-fired ships). It is also great to read history written in the 20s and 30s, so free from hindsight about WWII.
The United Kingdom would do well to mix it up a bit instead of going whole hog on one type of ship. I think they picked the wrong one, historically they went overboard but ultimately beat the fellows with whom they competed.
As I understand it, relations between the US and the UK were a cool combination of political animosity and economic cooperation (especially involving British capital funding American infrastructure and industrial projects) for most of the 19th century, but after the Civil War there was never any real reason for conflict between the two. Here America's colonial ambitions may have tweaked the Empire's tail, and the Royal Navy isn't thrilled about America's naval buildup...but I can't see any potential serious cause fot conflict. (I very much doubt that two more-or-less democratic powers will launch themselves into an arms race without some reason.) Frost's machinations will at the very least be the catalyst for the next war...and my hunch is that she'll find more success in Berlin than London.
Enewald - no submarines because no electrical gear, or telephones, or whatever you build subs out of in Vic:Rev. Patience - the submarines are coming. The submarines are coming...
Stuyvesant - Yes, Captain Horne is an invented character. He is sort of the anti-Mahan since he avoids the historical and geographical forces to focus on what type of ship the Royal Navy should build. Alfred Thayer Mahan felt that strategic principles and geography were little affected by technology and didn't much care for the new steam-and-steel fleet.
In Victoria, the latest ship class usually has a big advantage. Ironclads kill wooden ships and raiders, protected cruisers shred ironclads, pre-dreadnought battleships decisively trump protected cruisers. Of course the usual forces of morale and organization also weigh heavily.
My US is determined not to provoke Britain, but I don't like them beating up on Mexico either. Whether or not Britain wants to be my adversary is another question; at this point I'm just rambling along and hoping not.
merrick - sometimes the AI is hard to beat exactly because it does such goofy things. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
To challenge the Royal Navy you have to mount a challenge and be seen as a challenger. Had Beresford kept the confidence of King Edward VII and been in charge instead of Fisher, the Royal Navy would have gone only reluctantly into the battleship age. Had Wilhelm II been less of a publicity-loving, tone-deaf chowderhead, Tirpitz might have gotten into better striking range before Britain woke up. So it goes - the 'ifs' accumulate.
The British don't get the pre-dreadnought tech until around 1889 or 1890. The US gets it in 1883 or so. Given that the game says the US is building pre-dreadnoughts, what could those be? Devastation and ships like her - capital ships recognizable as battleships and not central-battery or sail-equipped ironclads. I know that isn't a particularly good place to draw the line and it certainly isn't where I would choose, but - the game says the US is building battleships in 1883, and Devastation is just about the best tech available. As you point out there was a lot of experimentation and hunting around before the Royal Sovereigns pretty much settled the question. The US has a signal advantage in having a man who already knows the 'best' solutions.
HMS Captain could almost be the subject of a discussion all by herself. Captain Cowper Coles designed one of the world's best turrets and camapigned endlessly to get the Royal Navy to build ships to his design, with heavy guns in his turrets, heavy armor, fast speed under steam, very tall masts and spars for high speed under sail, and a low freeboard. He and his supporters finally wore the Admiralty down and he got permission to build a ship to his own design. The end result wasn't bad; she could have had a long and happy life were it not for three things. The Admiralty refused to take any responsibility for her construction or provide any more than a very general oversight. Coles wasn't a trained naval architect. And the builders mis-calculated the weights - when launched she was several feet farther down in the water than designed. The Admiralty refused to accept the ship unless Coles signed off on it, which he finally did. The problem is that a ship's ability to right itself from a roll is partly dependent on the height of its side. Once Captain heeled more than (I think) 25 degrees or so the righting force began decreasing and she just kept going over. That happened in a storm; almost everyone (including Coles) perished.
Iain Wilson - merrick knows his stuff, and I'm a complete navy tech-geek, so when the two of us get going it rapidly degenerates into jargon. Very meaningful, well-informed and interesting jargon, however.
Alfredian - you're probably aware of Robert K Massie's 'Dreadnought', which is both a detailed history and a love-song to an age that was busy trying to kill itself. The US/USSR naval rivalry of 1950 on is another example of a shipbuilding race.
J. Passepartout - well, in Vicky the AI tends to build only the newest and best type until another newer and better comes along. And barring losing ship in a war it never scraps the old ones.
Fulcrumvale - relations between the US and UK went from pretty fair to awfully bad several times from 1850-1915 and it is possible the two countries could have gone to war at a couple of points (Hawaii and Samoa being two). But Britain was a firm friend during the Spanish-American War and of course WWI changed the dynamic and set the tone for the Atlantic friendship we still have.
To all - I rewrote the requirements, specs, cost and maintenance cost and construction times for all the ship classes past ironclads. In short they are much more expensive, require more types of materials and have different characteristics (subs have high shock attack while carriers have very high scouting values).
In our history, the advent of the quick-firing gun and the automobile (self-moving) torpedo led to the French declaration of a rival school of naval warfare, the jeune ecole. Unlike the Royal Navy, which put its weight into battleships for blockading ports, the French would build large numbers of torpedo boats to fight a close blockade and cruisers for commerce raiding. Like the later Soviet bomber/missile/submarine challenge to US carrier groups, the jeune ecole was supposed to bypass the necessity for an expensive battle fleet. Like Soviet doctrine, the jeune ecole was never tested. If history is any guide it failed, for commerce raiding depends on open ports or on ships able to evade a blockade. Like the raiders of the Napoleonic wars a jeune ecole campaign against commerce would have been painful for Britain, but probably not enough to be decisive. Submarines would change the equation because of their ability to avoid detection...
In the history of 'Providence', the jeune ecole has triumphed in Britain, where the Royal Navy is busily building light ships for commerce protection. As several of you have pointed out, the lack of any serious challenger has allowed the Royal Navy to get by on very small budgets. It seems likely to me that the best and brightest officers would have left the Navy or given up and become drones, so if anything the Royal Navy of 'Providence' is even more reactionary and hide-bound than it was in real life.
As to the American answer, Devastation dates from 1873 and the Admiral class from 1887. The revolutionary Duilio and Dandololikewise date from 1880. With a little creative jiggering we can have 'battleships' displacing 10,000 tons with modest freeboard (no masts or sails) making 15 knots under steam alone, with 4-12" breech-loading rifles in two turrets or barbettes and boasting 14-16" armor. Add in a battry of 6 to 8 6" quick-firing guns and these look like battleships. Their guns and armor would be sufficient to blow a protected cruiser out of the water.
Essential here is that we assume the Royal Navy made a complacent, budget-bound decision to put commerce and colonies over battle fleets. They believe that two (or four) British protected cruisers could out-fight a battleship. In such a closed-in, self-centered, reactionary service no British admiral would assume otherwise. The big American ships would be derided as wasteful, inefficient freaks.
For those who don't know, a turret is a metal cylinder, usually several decks high, containing guns. The entire structure rotates. A barbette is an armored, non-rotating cylinder set several decks deep into the hull. The guns are usually on a turntable and poke over the lip at the top. Later an armored gunhouse covered the turntable and this was also called a turret.
Stuyvesant - Yes, Captain Horne is an invented character. He is sort of the anti-Mahan since he avoids the historical and geographical forces to focus on what type of ship the Royal Navy should build. Alfred Thayer Mahan felt that strategic principles and geography were little affected by technology and didn't much care for the new steam-and-steel fleet.
In Victoria, the latest ship class usually has a big advantage. Ironclads kill wooden ships and raiders, protected cruisers shred ironclads, pre-dreadnought battleships decisively trump protected cruisers. Of course the usual forces of morale and organization also weigh heavily.
My US is determined not to provoke Britain, but I don't like them beating up on Mexico either. Whether or not Britain wants to be my adversary is another question; at this point I'm just rambling along and hoping not.
merrick - sometimes the AI is hard to beat exactly because it does such goofy things. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
To challenge the Royal Navy you have to mount a challenge and be seen as a challenger. Had Beresford kept the confidence of King Edward VII and been in charge instead of Fisher, the Royal Navy would have gone only reluctantly into the battleship age. Had Wilhelm II been less of a publicity-loving, tone-deaf chowderhead, Tirpitz might have gotten into better striking range before Britain woke up. So it goes - the 'ifs' accumulate.
The British don't get the pre-dreadnought tech until around 1889 or 1890. The US gets it in 1883 or so. Given that the game says the US is building pre-dreadnoughts, what could those be? Devastation and ships like her - capital ships recognizable as battleships and not central-battery or sail-equipped ironclads. I know that isn't a particularly good place to draw the line and it certainly isn't where I would choose, but - the game says the US is building battleships in 1883, and Devastation is just about the best tech available. As you point out there was a lot of experimentation and hunting around before the Royal Sovereigns pretty much settled the question. The US has a signal advantage in having a man who already knows the 'best' solutions.
HMS Captain could almost be the subject of a discussion all by herself. Captain Cowper Coles designed one of the world's best turrets and camapigned endlessly to get the Royal Navy to build ships to his design, with heavy guns in his turrets, heavy armor, fast speed under steam, very tall masts and spars for high speed under sail, and a low freeboard. He and his supporters finally wore the Admiralty down and he got permission to build a ship to his own design. The end result wasn't bad; she could have had a long and happy life were it not for three things. The Admiralty refused to take any responsibility for her construction or provide any more than a very general oversight. Coles wasn't a trained naval architect. And the builders mis-calculated the weights - when launched she was several feet farther down in the water than designed. The Admiralty refused to accept the ship unless Coles signed off on it, which he finally did. The problem is that a ship's ability to right itself from a roll is partly dependent on the height of its side. Once Captain heeled more than (I think) 25 degrees or so the righting force began decreasing and she just kept going over. That happened in a storm; almost everyone (including Coles) perished.
Iain Wilson - merrick knows his stuff, and I'm a complete navy tech-geek, so when the two of us get going it rapidly degenerates into jargon. Very meaningful, well-informed and interesting jargon, however.
Alfredian - you're probably aware of Robert K Massie's 'Dreadnought', which is both a detailed history and a love-song to an age that was busy trying to kill itself. The US/USSR naval rivalry of 1950 on is another example of a shipbuilding race.
J. Passepartout - well, in Vicky the AI tends to build only the newest and best type until another newer and better comes along. And barring losing ship in a war it never scraps the old ones.
Fulcrumvale - relations between the US and UK went from pretty fair to awfully bad several times from 1850-1915 and it is possible the two countries could have gone to war at a couple of points (Hawaii and Samoa being two). But Britain was a firm friend during the Spanish-American War and of course WWI changed the dynamic and set the tone for the Atlantic friendship we still have.
To all - I rewrote the requirements, specs, cost and maintenance cost and construction times for all the ship classes past ironclads. In short they are much more expensive, require more types of materials and have different characteristics (subs have high shock attack while carriers have very high scouting values).
In our history, the advent of the quick-firing gun and the automobile (self-moving) torpedo led to the French declaration of a rival school of naval warfare, the jeune ecole. Unlike the Royal Navy, which put its weight into battleships for blockading ports, the French would build large numbers of torpedo boats to fight a close blockade and cruisers for commerce raiding. Like the later Soviet bomber/missile/submarine challenge to US carrier groups, the jeune ecole was supposed to bypass the necessity for an expensive battle fleet. Like Soviet doctrine, the jeune ecole was never tested. If history is any guide it failed, for commerce raiding depends on open ports or on ships able to evade a blockade. Like the raiders of the Napoleonic wars a jeune ecole campaign against commerce would have been painful for Britain, but probably not enough to be decisive. Submarines would change the equation because of their ability to avoid detection...
In the history of 'Providence', the jeune ecole has triumphed in Britain, where the Royal Navy is busily building light ships for commerce protection. As several of you have pointed out, the lack of any serious challenger has allowed the Royal Navy to get by on very small budgets. It seems likely to me that the best and brightest officers would have left the Navy or given up and become drones, so if anything the Royal Navy of 'Providence' is even more reactionary and hide-bound than it was in real life.
As to the American answer, Devastation dates from 1873 and the Admiral class from 1887. The revolutionary Duilio and Dandololikewise date from 1880. With a little creative jiggering we can have 'battleships' displacing 10,000 tons with modest freeboard (no masts or sails) making 15 knots under steam alone, with 4-12" breech-loading rifles in two turrets or barbettes and boasting 14-16" armor. Add in a battry of 6 to 8 6" quick-firing guns and these look like battleships. Their guns and armor would be sufficient to blow a protected cruiser out of the water.
Essential here is that we assume the Royal Navy made a complacent, budget-bound decision to put commerce and colonies over battle fleets. They believe that two (or four) British protected cruisers could out-fight a battleship. In such a closed-in, self-centered, reactionary service no British admiral would assume otherwise. The big American ships would be derided as wasteful, inefficient freaks.
For those who don't know, a turret is a metal cylinder, usually several decks high, containing guns. The entire structure rotates. A barbette is an armored, non-rotating cylinder set several decks deep into the hull. The guns are usually on a turntable and poke over the lip at the top. Later an armored gunhouse covered the turntable and this was also called a turret.
Ahh, I thought I'd heard the booms on naval gunfire somewhere, and of course I find it here, in your magnificent story!
I have to tell you, Director, that I'd searched two libraries for "Sons of Neptune" before I decided to look it up by author and found it was Horne -- the guy who I'd just read was a fictional character.
Too bad -- would've been a good book!
Very interesting update (the naval one -- perhaps you've posted more since then).
Is the British reliance upon a fleet of 50 fast cruisers a representation of the game AI's tendency to overbuild?
Rensslaer
EDIT: Looks like you answered the final sentence in your feedback...
I have to tell you, Director, that I'd searched two libraries for "Sons of Neptune" before I decided to look it up by author and found it was Horne -- the guy who I'd just read was a fictional character.
Too bad -- would've been a good book!
Very interesting update (the naval one -- perhaps you've posted more since then).
Is the British reliance upon a fleet of 50 fast cruisers a representation of the game AI's tendency to overbuild?
Rensslaer
EDIT: Looks like you answered the final sentence in your feedback...
Last edited:
Now that's a compliment you don't get every day.- merrick knows his stuff, and I'm a complete navy tech-geek, so when the two of us get going it rapidly degenerates into jargon. Very meaningful, well-informed and interesting jargon, however.
You were right about Captain - she was intended to have 9' of freeboard (still much lower than previous masted turret ships), but thanks to an untested design, shoddy building practices and poor oversight ended up with less than 7'. When a high-sided ship heels, it pushes more of the hull into the water on the "down" side and generates a righting force. When a low-sided ship heels too much the water comes over the lee bulwark - not only no more righting force, but you'd better hope you don't have any open hatches on the upper deck.
If you're building your pre-dreadnoughts in 1883, rather than the mid-1870's as I'd thought, I withdraw most of my objections to the name. By 1883, Devastation was a 10-year-old design - practically obsolete in the rapidly-moving world of Victorian naval technology. In OTL's 1883, the Royal Navy's latest battleships were the Agamemnons - basically cut-down Inflexibles, midships turrets, muzzle-loading guns, wood-backed armour and all, but without the sails and with a (token) secondary armament. However, they'd already launched Colossus (same layout as Agamemnon, but steel construction, breech-loading guns and a beefed-up secondary armament) and Collingwood (the first of the barbette ships with the classic pre-dreadnought layout, smaller guns than Colossus but better speed and handling). I don't think it's unreasonable that with Makhearne's help the USN could have proper pre-dreadnoughts in the mid-1880s.
Actually, given the background, OTL's French designs of the early 1880s could be a better model for your world than the British - the French went to barbettes earlier (though only single mounts), and they used a protection system very similar to the protected cruisers, with an armoured deck on top of a narrow armour belt and the upper hull outside the barbette trunks basically sacrificial volume. They didn't look much like "classic" pre-dreadnoughts, with tumblehome hulls, tall masts, no superstructure and the main guns in side sponsons, but the basic technology is there.
Stategically, I think I have to defend your fictional Admiralty. The British Empire simply can't afford not to build a pile of cruisers for commerce and colony protection, and given the lack of opposition, they do fine for fleet work as well. The jeune ecole approach was always a strategy for a weaker power - build a cheap fleet for asymmetric warfare rather than waste resources on the second-best battlefleet (as the French had done in the 18th century and the Germans would do in the 20th). The British in your world are suffering from the problems of unchallenged superiority - I'm sure the Admiralty would like to play with new battleship designs, but in the absence of a credible threat, how can they persuade the Treasury to pay for them? 20 US super-ironclads can't blockade the whole British Isles, or even defend the whole of the American coast - and wherever they aren't, the British will be winning. Cutting cruisers they need for battleships that have no use outside a confrontation with the US is poor strategy. (There's also the psychological issue that the post-Civil War Americans will be thinking in terms of a single powerful ironclad dominating a whole theatre, while the British - who have never fought an ironclad war - are more likely to think that even the biggest and newest go down if you mass enough ships against them.)
Battleships are overkill in this world - the British ironclads are increasingly obsolete, while no-one else has anything at all. Why waste weight on 14" armour, when nothing modern has battleship-calibre guns? Why 12" guns, when none of the targets is armoured against 8" shells? And is 15 knots fast enough to force action against a modern cruiser? I'd think a ship-killer for this environment would have a main battery of multiple fast-firing 8-10" weapons, armour agaisnt heavy-cruiser fire and the speed and weatherliness to run the cruisers down. Come to think of it, that sounds a lot like Fisher's original BC concept....
Merrick,
When you write your book about this stuff, let me know -- I'll buy it in place of Horne's!
Rensslaer
When you write your book about this stuff, let me know -- I'll buy it in place of Horne's!
Rensslaer
I know I haven't commented much recently - usually because I'm left in sheer awe of the depth and breadth of your knowledge, Director.
So now we get into the transition from sailing ships to steam powered vessels - very intelligent analysis. Merrick's was top rate as well...indeed, by all means prepare new technologies against the future, but why build heavier ships when smaller ships (and less upkeep) will still ensure dominance?
So now we get into the transition from sailing ships to steam powered vessels - very intelligent analysis. Merrick's was top rate as well...indeed, by all means prepare new technologies against the future, but why build heavier ships when smaller ships (and less upkeep) will still ensure dominance?
WOW - some great replies. I have the best, most literate and knowledgeable readers in AARland - and the above is the proof.
I'm going to natter just a bit more and then move on with the next update, which if I dare say so is going to be a stem-winder. Spiderman-Green Goblin, Superman-Lex Luthor, Godzilla-Mothra, Kick-A**-Red Mist - these ain't nothin'. Wait until you get a load of Frost-von Bismarck...
Iain Wilson - after merrick's second salvo you'll be ready for the graduate courses! No, wait! Come back! Come baaaack...
Rensslaer - I know I'm spending a lot of powder on this, but I like digging out reasons to explain the crazy things the AI does. Sort of like starting from the premise that the Flat-Earth Society is right and building your world-view from there.
Wait, I'm confused. You're telling me you actually FOUND THE BOOK? Dude, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I swear I thought it was fiction! FICTION! FICTION I TELL YOU! MWAHH HAH HA HA HA... *slap*
Um, where were we? Oh, yes. I thought Horne's book would provide the kind of crystalization of thought that followed Mahan's 'Influence of Sea Power Upon History'. The sad thing is that Horne's book is widely read, much admired, profoundly influential and only partly right. So long as no other power builds a true battle fleet, Britain is right to concentrate on trade protection - ie, cruisers.
+1 for the idea of merrick writing a book. I'm there.
merrick - as long as everyone understands that I'm explaining away the crazy AI and not Britain-bashing or being a USA fanboy, I'm good. I agree completely with you that, given the facts they have and no serious opposition to the ironclads they already have, the Admiralty is right. Their error is a subtle one, compounded chiefly of complacency, parsimony and a general lack of understanding of what the American battleships mean. But in most respects, protected cruisers are a better value for the money, especially so when quick-firing guns can shred unarmored sections and punch through ironclad-type armor at close range. If you lose a few cruisers, well - so what? The blind spot is that they don't see that the wonders that cutting-edge technology can bring to 5000 tons are immensely enhanced when applied to 10000 tons. They're thinking linear and the amplification is logarhythmic.
Your point about American belief in the power of a single big ship to alter the naval balance is just amazing. I'd never thought of it that way, but it fits the American tradition from Constitution to Niagara to Dunderberg to the giant commerce-raiding Wampanoag class (4200 tons and almost 18 knots from a wooden steamship in 1865...). Nice insight. Here's one back: from the Dutch Wars on, Britain had smaller, weaker and generally poorer-designed ships than the Dutch, the French or the Spaniards. What they did have was training, high standards of gunnery and ship-handling and an understanding that war meant fighting, hard and at close range. So confronting superior individual ships with equal or even fewer inferior ships would not have been seen as a problem, provided the British ships were well handled and aggressively fought.
Since the game calls the ships pre-dreadnought battleships, I don't really have any choice - but it is a decade too soon to see a true battleship. Vicky tends to have techs coming at unhistorically early ages, though. I agree that the French brought forward a lot of technical innovations from which they were unable to really profit. So, critically, did Italy.
Captain had a freeboard of around six feet instead of nine, as you note. The builder was adding weight for strength and nobody was supervising the construction... so she was waaaay too heavy. Blame Coles, Laird and the Admiralty - there's enough to go around. A shame in that, if correctly built, she might have been everything Coles expected and spawned a decade of imitations.
I think the proper mix for the Royal Navy is three classes of cruiser. The third class would be small, with 4-5" QF guns and a good turn of speed. Second (most numerous) class would be middling sized - 4000-5000 tons - with 6" QF guns and high speed. The first class would be 7000-9000 tons with 9.2" or 8" guns and a battery of 6" QF guns equal to a cruiser of the second class. These would be relatively few but would (like battlecruisers) be thought equal to standing up to an older ironclad or an American battleship.
CatKnight - thank you for the compliment, sir, but if I have restrained you from commenting I shall stop forthwith.
The key point for me is that Britain has no need to lead off a technical revolution in naval warfare - in fact has every reason to let sleeping battleships lie.
I'm going to natter just a bit more and then move on with the next update, which if I dare say so is going to be a stem-winder. Spiderman-Green Goblin, Superman-Lex Luthor, Godzilla-Mothra, Kick-A**-Red Mist - these ain't nothin'. Wait until you get a load of Frost-von Bismarck...
Iain Wilson - after merrick's second salvo you'll be ready for the graduate courses!
No, wait! Come back! Come baaaack...Rensslaer - I know I'm spending a lot of powder on this, but I like digging out reasons to explain the crazy things the AI does. Sort of like starting from the premise that the Flat-Earth Society is right and building your world-view from there.
Wait, I'm confused. You're telling me you actually FOUND THE BOOK? Dude, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I swear I thought it was fiction! FICTION! FICTION I TELL YOU! MWAHH HAH HA HA HA... *slap*
Um, where were we? Oh, yes. I thought Horne's book would provide the kind of crystalization of thought that followed Mahan's 'Influence of Sea Power Upon History'. The sad thing is that Horne's book is widely read, much admired, profoundly influential and only partly right. So long as no other power builds a true battle fleet, Britain is right to concentrate on trade protection - ie, cruisers.
+1 for the idea of merrick writing a book. I'm there.
merrick - as long as everyone understands that I'm explaining away the crazy AI and not Britain-bashing or being a USA fanboy, I'm good. I agree completely with you that, given the facts they have and no serious opposition to the ironclads they already have, the Admiralty is right. Their error is a subtle one, compounded chiefly of complacency, parsimony and a general lack of understanding of what the American battleships mean. But in most respects, protected cruisers are a better value for the money, especially so when quick-firing guns can shred unarmored sections and punch through ironclad-type armor at close range. If you lose a few cruisers, well - so what? The blind spot is that they don't see that the wonders that cutting-edge technology can bring to 5000 tons are immensely enhanced when applied to 10000 tons. They're thinking linear and the amplification is logarhythmic.
Your point about American belief in the power of a single big ship to alter the naval balance is just amazing. I'd never thought of it that way, but it fits the American tradition from Constitution to Niagara to Dunderberg to the giant commerce-raiding Wampanoag class (4200 tons and almost 18 knots from a wooden steamship in 1865...). Nice insight. Here's one back: from the Dutch Wars on, Britain had smaller, weaker and generally poorer-designed ships than the Dutch, the French or the Spaniards. What they did have was training, high standards of gunnery and ship-handling and an understanding that war meant fighting, hard and at close range. So confronting superior individual ships with equal or even fewer inferior ships would not have been seen as a problem, provided the British ships were well handled and aggressively fought.
Since the game calls the ships pre-dreadnought battleships, I don't really have any choice - but it is a decade too soon to see a true battleship. Vicky tends to have techs coming at unhistorically early ages, though. I agree that the French brought forward a lot of technical innovations from which they were unable to really profit. So, critically, did Italy.
Captain had a freeboard of around six feet instead of nine, as you note. The builder was adding weight for strength and nobody was supervising the construction... so she was waaaay too heavy. Blame Coles, Laird and the Admiralty - there's enough to go around. A shame in that, if correctly built, she might have been everything Coles expected and spawned a decade of imitations.
I think the proper mix for the Royal Navy is three classes of cruiser. The third class would be small, with 4-5" QF guns and a good turn of speed. Second (most numerous) class would be middling sized - 4000-5000 tons - with 6" QF guns and high speed. The first class would be 7000-9000 tons with 9.2" or 8" guns and a battery of 6" QF guns equal to a cruiser of the second class. These would be relatively few but would (like battlecruisers) be thought equal to standing up to an older ironclad or an American battleship.
CatKnight - thank you for the compliment, sir, but if I have restrained you from commenting I shall stop forthwith.
The key point for me is that Britain has no need to lead off a technical revolution in naval warfare - in fact has every reason to let sleeping battleships lie.
I don't know much of naval history, but merrick's comment are still awesome.
I'd buy his book.
I'd buy his book.
Aw, bliss! That was fun to read (where 'fun' is defined as 'actually requiring usage of my brains'). Knowing that some (or most/all) of this stuff is going to show up in the story at some point is just the icing on the cake.
One of God's little jokes was to give me a love for the sea and the ability to get sea sick at the hint of a wave. Still I've always had an interest in naval history but I don't hold a candle to you or merrick. Makhearne must have a fist full of money to be able to throw it around to the extent that he can change the USA navy. What else is he going to get his hands into? As others have said reading this AAR is an education.
Joe
Joe
Now you're going overboard.
You not only know more about all this than me, you're also working it into a coherent narrative while I stand on the sidelines and toss in random comments based on popular history.It seemed logical, given that everyone in the US Navy will remember the Baltic (which barely qualified as a ship, much less a battleship) standing off half the US fleet at Mobile before the US found a bigger hammer. While the British, as you say, will be steeped in the Trafalgar tradition that technical superiority is trumped by training, discipline, spirit and tradition, and they have the best tradition (comparisons with Japan in the 1930s and 40s pretty much inevitable). Complacency was a huge problem for the Royal Navy OTL, when they were in successive naval races with Italy, France/Russia and Germany, and I can't see it getting any better in your world.
Provided, of course, they don't expect a rival to adopt it and steal a march on them. It's interesting to speculate who the British of your timeline see as "the competition". France? (weak and not a naval threat) Germany? (no major clash of interests, also not a naval threat) Russia? (a colonial rival but a long way away) The US? (ditto, plus lots of trade and a similar political system). There's also the wrinkle that if anyone in London does start thinking of "the American threat", their first thought will be the Canadian border - ironically given the naval angle, the US is the one power that can actually hurt the British in a land war...The key point for me is that Britain has no need to lead off a technical revolution in naval warfare - in fact has every reason to let sleeping battleships lie.
On to Germany! Frost vs Bismarck, three falls, no submissions, no hitting above the belt and spiky helmets mandatory.
<munchingpopcorn>This is fascinating. Pray continue. Oh, and good posts, D.</munchingpopcorn>