Alsace class battleship

[Ariecho]

Genesis:

1936 has been a pivotal year  when it comes to military shipbuilding.  The naval treaty of 1922 was being disapproved by most nations, starting with Japan who stipulated that they would not accept any limitations, although they had been one of the two countries that hadn’t been shafted by the Washington treaty.  Italy followed Japan very soon and it was already clear that while Germany remained silent, the Kriegsmarine was rearming.

 

1936 was also the year when France started construction of its second Richelieu-class battleship, the Jean Bart, and Germany also started the Tirpitz.

 

The London treaty:

Sides were already shaping up and the second London treaty was only attended by three countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.  Germany was not invited, and both Japan and Italy refused to participate.

 

France’s position was then that they would keep abiding to the Washington treaty as long as no other European country would breach it; but every country present in London was arming their study boards to be ready for a non-compliance by April 1st, 1937 (deadline) by neither Japan nor Italy.  

 

France hesitated between the 380mm and the 406mm main gun calibres, but opted for the former one for logistical reason.  The larger calibre would have created a logistical nightmare, and was then discarded.   The United States developed the North Carolina-class with the potential of having both gun calibres installable without compromising the ship structure.  It took a long debate that lasted until July 10th, 1937, and Japan's constant refusal to sign the treaty (or any amendment offered by the US) for Roosevelt to order the navy to install 406mm guns on the North Carolinas.

 

Richelieu:

The Alsace class is undoubtedly heavily inspired by the Richelieu.  The main difference being that some naval strategists, starting with Admiral Darlan were getting concerned with the “all forward armament” that was the main concept of the Richelieu-class.  Therefore, the additional turret was added aft.

 

Infrastructure:

Building a new and larger class of battleships also meant that the Laninon Docks in Brest had to be modernized.  Works were underway but wouldn’t be finished until the end of 1941 at the earliest, and envisaged the construction of a 275m long and 58m wide dock, specifically built for the Alsace.

 

Projects:

 

 

In 1939, French naval intelligence was informed that the Kriegsmarine intended to build two battleships (presumably the H39) with a displacement of 40,000 tons and a main armament of 406mm.

 

Project H39 (picture courtesy of his JeeWeeJness)

http://img4.imagesha...3/h39opbouw.png

 

To answer this new threat, STCN (Service Technique des Constructions Navales – Technical Service for Naval Shipyards) came with several projects for battleships with displacements of 40,000, 42,500, and even 45,000 tons.  These studies were all based on the “C series” started in 1937-1938, which offered two main turrets forward and one aft.

 

http://xoomer.virgil...ace_Designs.JPG

 

 

Project #1 was an enlargement of project C3 (the 37,000 tons battleship project) with 3x3 380mm turrets, as well as 3x3 152mm turrets (one forward and two aft).  The deck was also reinforced with a 170mm protection over machinery and 180mm over magazines.  This project is in some aspects similar to the Littorio-class, when it comes to armament.

Littorio

Project #2 was a “Project #1+” where the 380mm turrets were replaced with 406mm turrets.   While feasible, it would have dropped the ship’s maximum speed to 31 knots.

Project #3, which Dumas dubs as the “French super battleship” went back to the 380mm calibre, but with 3x4 turrets and an increased anti-aircraft suite.

Project #3

http://clausuchronia...ps_aircraft.gif

Analysis:

French admiralty came to the conclusion that the 406mm had more disadvantages than advantages.  It required the introduction of yet another calibre when most other navies only offered two at that time (the IJN later on introduced a third one).

 

Project #3 was the preferred one, but although it would have offered (at that time) a battleship that would have outclassed almost every other existing design, it was bringing too much burden on the French infrastructure and economy.

 

Therefore, the French Navy opted for project #1, essentially an enlarged Gascogne.  On April 1st, 1940, two battleships were authorized.  Four names were offered: Alsace, Normandie, Flandre, and Bourgogne.  The collapse of French ground forces a few months later prevented the construction of what would have been (in my opinion) a beautiful and powerful ship.

 

Should it have been built, Alsace would have had the following characteristics:

 

Displacement: 40,000 tonnes (Washington) -- 45,500 tonnes (full load)

Length: 252 meters

Width: 35 meters

Speed: 31 knots

Armament: 3x3 380mm -- 3x3 152mm -- 8x2 100mm

Protection: 330mm (belt) -- 170/180mm deck

 

Ari

[JeeWeeJ]

I'll have the #3 project please. 12 modern 15"guns...now that'll be fun to play with!  :Smile_smile:

[Ariecho]

JeeWeeJ, on 24 October 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

I'll have the #3 project please. 12 modern 15"guns...now that'll be fun to play with!  :Smile_smile:

I know!  I would have loved to see that baby!  

PS: If anybody has a better picture of the H39, I'd love to "borrow" it.

[JeeWeeJ]

A shameless rip from the EU forums:

http://img4.imagesha...3/h39opbouw.png

[Ariecho]

I'll take it.  Thank you, Sir! (+1)

[Ariecho]

JeeWeeJ, on 24 October 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

A shameless rip from the EU forums:
http://img4.imagesha...3/h39opbouw.png

By the way, JeeWeeJ, and I don't mean any disrespect, but the EU forums are a pale comparison to the wealth of information we can find on our forum!  Plus, there is no cat thread, so I don't even see the point of having any forum there anyway...

[JeeWeeJ]

Ariecho, on 24 October 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

By the way, JeeWeeJ, and I don't mean any disrespect, but the EU forums are a pale comparison to the wealth of information we can find on our forum!  Plus, there is no cat thread, so I don't even see the point of having any forum there anyway...

Lol, i'd be the first to acknowledge that! I used to read the stuff posted there, but it's become just another place filled with trolls (of the annoying kind) and cheap wikipedia copy-past actions. Now i mostly ignore it. It's much, much, MUCH better here.. Except for the cats... :Smile_trollface:

[Gigaton]

Ariecho, on 24 October 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

The London treaty:
Sides were already shaping up and the second London treaty was only attended by three countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.  France’s position was then that they would keep abiding to the Washington treaty as long as no other European country would breach it.  Therefore, despite the United States’ choice of opting for a 406mm calibre and a 45,000 tonnes displacement; France decided not to go over 380mm.

I find this part rather confusing. It sounds like USA breached the treaties at some point (it didn't as such, not until French and UK suspended them with the start of the war). I'll try to clarify how the treaty thing went in mid-late '30s.

Washington and First London treaties limit size of battleships to 35,000 tons standard displacement and armament to 16-in guns. These treaties, the part on cruiser rules aside, are in force until the end of 1936. They are in turn replaced by the Second London Naval Treaty, which keeps the same displacements but limits the guns to 14-in. Naturally, both 16-in and 380mm guns go equally against this part of the treaty. However, the treaty includes the so called escalator clause, which relaxes the gun caliber back to 16-in. It will come into effect no later than 1 April 1937 unless Japan and Italy agree to join the treaty. The 16-in guns are finally approved for North Carolina only in the July of 1937, well after the deadline. Lastly, in June 1938 France, Britain and the USA sign a protocol to the treaty that increases the tonnage to 45,000 tons.

[Anikus_Augustus]

I really like the #3 project. Great main/secondary armament layout, and with a 31k speed she would've been able to follow the USN's fast carriers. There are a couple of things I don't like about her. First, I don't like that her secondary guns were not dual-purpose, meaning they can't be used as AA weapons, which can be a huge disadvantage in an age where the aircraft is becoming the more dominant factor. Second, her AA defense, despite being increased, was lacking about a dozen 57mm AA cannons and twenty 20mm rapid-fire AA guns.

[Ariecho]

Gigaton, on 24 October 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

I find this part rather confusing. It sounds like USA breached the treaties at some point (it didn't as such, not until French and UK suspended them with the start of the war). I'll try to clarify how the treaty thing went in mid-late '30s.

Washington and First London treaties limit size of battleships to 35,000 tons standard displacement and armament to 16-in guns. These treaties, the part on cruiser rules aside, are in force until the end of 1936. They are in turn replaced by the Second London Naval Treaty, which keeps the same displacements but limits the guns to 14-in. Naturally, both 16-in and 380mm guns go equally against this part of the treaty. However, the treaty includes the so called escalator clause, which relaxes the gun caliber back to 16-in. It will come into effect no later than 1 April 1937 unless Japan and Italy agree to join the treaty. The 16-in guns are finally approved for North Carolina only in the July of 1937, well after the deadline. Lastly, in June 1938 France, Britain and the USA sign a protocol to the treaty that increases the tonnage to 45,000 tons.

You are correct!  In an effort to shorten the text, I forgot some important elements.

There was a clause in the London treaty that mentioned that should Italy and Japan not decide to sign the treaty by April 1st, 1937, then all clauses that were imposed by the Washington treaty would automatically be relaxed.  

However, from what I understand, the US had already decided to go beyond the Washington treaty agreement as early as 1934 when the Vinson-Trammell bill authorized the US navy to build new battleships after it was clear that Japan would not abide anymore with the treaty.  The only choice that was not made until 1937 was for the calibre of the guns (356mm or 406mm), as the US navy was waiting on a Japanese formal position.

[Coldt]

Now THAT'S a ship.  Usually I love to poke holes in designs, particularly quad turreted ones, but this one... Its armor is too tough....  I might actually prefer this ship over the Montana.  I like the forward focussed firepower.

[Gigaton]

Ariecho, on 24 October 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

There was a clause in the London treaty that mentioned that should Italy and Japan not decide to sign the treaty by April 1st, 1937, then all clauses that were imposed by the Washington treaty would automatically be relaxed.  

However, from what I understand, the US had already decided to go beyond the Washington treaty agreement as early as 1934 when the Vinson-Trammell bill authorized the US navy to build new battleships after it was clear that Japan would not abide anymore with the treaty.  The only choice that was not made until 1937 was for the calibre of the guns (356mm or 406mm), as the US navy was waiting on a Japanese formal position.

Washington treaty no longer applies at all in 1937. The 2nd London treaty replaced it.

Washington treaty (1922) imposed limitations on the displacement and armament of capital ships and restricts the amount of total tonnage each signatory is allowed. It also includes a replacment schedule. Britain, France and Italy are all allowed 70,000 tons of replacement tonnage in the '20s. All five signatories are allowed further tonnage in the '30s. The 1st London treaty (1930) revises the Washington treaty and extends the battleship holiday. Signatories are no longer permitted to build the replacement tonnage for the '30s that was allowed for in the Washington treaty, though both Italy and France are still allowed the 70,000 tons from '20s which neither had yet used. In actual wording of the treaty, they are not to exercise their rights to lay down keels during 1931-36 (no replacement tonnage was allowed for year 1930 for any country).

Both treaties expired at the end of 1936. The 2nd London treaty is signed in 1936 and comes into force at the start of 1937. It imposes the new restriction on gun size, but unlike the previous treaties it no longer restricts the allowed total tonnage.

Since USA did not lay down new keels until North Carolinas, they did not violate the letter of the 1st London treaty. Incidentally, for Richelieu and Jean Bart France bypassed the 70,000 ton limitation (already nearly used up by the two Dunkerques) in the 1st London treaty. To my knowledge they justified it with clauses in previous treaties. In strictest sense they did kinda violate the 1st London treaty (though not the Washington one) in doing so.

[Ariecho]

I will slightly disagree with your analysis, in the spirit of commenting.

 

First, yes, when I'm speaking about the London treaty, I am speaking about the 2nd one, but I thought that part (at least) was clear in my original message.

 

When it comes to the North Carolinas, they were designed with the intent to be able to have their main armament replaced without any modification to the ship structure, should the Japanese refuse to comply.

 

So yes, in a sense, you are right, the US did not breach the treaty "in the letter", but they were ready to jump the gun (pun intended) in a heartbeat, and the back and forth between Roosevelt and Reeves tends to prove it.

 

Keep in mind that the design was established before the 2nd London treaty.

 

The French position was that they didn't care whatever happened in the Pacific.  I guess they didn't think that the Japanese could threaten Indochina.  However, they were ready to upgrade their guns should the Italians or the Germans show any sign of it, which the latter showed with project 39.

 

Interesting conversation, in any case.  Thanks, Gigaton!

[Ariecho]

Coldt, on 24 October 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

Now THAT'S a ship.  Usually I love to poke holes in designs, particularly quad turreted ones, but this one... Its armor is too tough....  I might actually prefer this ship over the Montana.  I like the forward focussed firepower.

I'm not sure which version will appear in the game (if any).  I'd like to try both option 2 and option 3 as well.

[Coldt]

Ariecho, on 25 October 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

I'm not sure which version will appear in the game (if any).  I'd like to try both option 2 and option 3 as well.

If you're smart you'll go with 2.  Remember, I'm playing to, and my planes love big juicey ships.

[Gigaton]

Ariecho, on 25 October 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

I will slightly disagree with your analysis, in the spirit of commenting.

If the point is that the US had rather cavalier attitude towards the 14-in gun restriction, then I'll agree with that.

But letter of neither 1st or 2nd London treaty was broken. The 1st treaty did not disallow designing or ordering of new capital ships even if did disallow laying down the keels (Britain, for it's part, ordered the first two KGVs on side of 1936, and laid them down the first day they could) and the increase in gun caliber under the 2nd treaty was certainly treaty compliant by the time it was decided on.

For the French, any guns above 14-in on 2nd London treaty battleships (Richelieu and Jean Bart were Washington/1st London era ones) are going to rely on the same clause US relied on for the 16-in guns.

[Ariecho]

You are correct, and I will re-write that paragraph accordingly.

 

From what I read (French sources), there must have been some unofficial conversations between the three countries at the conference or at least between the French and the US, as nothing is mentioned about the British, on top of the official negotiations.  I guess that we will never know (and I'll leave it at that), but both the French and the US seemed to have concluded that neither Japan nor Italy would sign by April 1st, 1937, and engineers on both sides of the Atlantic were already conducting studies for more powerful ships.

 

What stopped the French was not any intention to remain faithful to the letter or the spirit of the treaty, but the fact that they already had too many big calibres in service within the fleet.  I am positive that if logistics had not been a problem, Project 2 (406mm) would have been picked.

 

In any case, it didn't matter in the end, as events on the ground dictated what would happen in the high seas.

 

To add to my first post, two Alsace were commissioned.   It should be added that if things had been done according to schedule, then there would have been no room to build the Painleve (French aircraft carrier on schedule).  But that's alternative history...

[Gigaton]

Regarding the edited OP, The King Geroge V class doesn't actually have to wait for anything besides the end of the Washington and 1st London treaties which disallowed Britain from building more than the Nelsons. The 2nd London treaty did not restrict the total tonnage, so the signatories were free to build as many they wished or could just as long as they conformed with the limitations placed on individual ships (new heavy cruiser construction was also banned).

 

You can find online copies of the treaties here: http://www.navweaps....ch/tech-089.htm

[Ariecho]

Gigaton, on 26 October 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Regarding the edited OP, The King Geroge V class doesn't actually have to wait for anything besides the end of the Washington and 1st London treaties which disallowed Britain from building more than the Nelsons. The 2nd London treaty did not restrict the total tonnage, so the signatories were free to build as many they wished or could just as long as they conformed with the limitations placed on individual ships (new heavy cruiser construction was also banned).

You can find online copies of the treaties here: http://www.navweaps....ch/tech-089.htm

Now, you're getting nit-picking ...  I don't think I mentioned any specific British ship in my post ...  :Smile_sceptic: