Washington Naval Treaties, What If...

[Redwing6]

EDIT: Pic links had all rotted, so I replaced them.

What if the Washington naval treaties of the 1920's had never been signed?  Here's a possible look at the USS Lexington

Type: Battlecruiser Displacement: 43,500 long tons (44,200 t)

44,638 long tons (45,354 t) deep load Length: 874 ft (266.4 m) overall Beam: 105 ft 4 in (32.1 m) Draft: 31 ft (9.4 m) Installed power: 180,000 shp (130,000 kW) Propulsion: four shafts

Turbo-electric drive

16 water-tube boilers Speed: 33 knots (61 km/h; 38 mph) Range: 10,000 nmi (19,000 km; 12,000 mi) at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) Complement: 1297 (1326 as flagship) Armament:

• 4 × 2 - 16-inch (406 mm)/50 cal guns
• 14 × 1 - 6-inch (152 mm)/53 cal
• 4 (later 8) × 1 - 3-inch (76 mm)/50 cal anti-aircraft guns
• 8 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes, 4 submerged

Armor:

• Belt: 5–7 in (127–178 mm)
• Barbettes: 5–9 in (127–229 mm)
• Turret face: 11 in (279 mm)
• Turret sides: 6 in (152 mm)
• Conning tower: 12 in (305 mm)
• Deck: 1.5–2.25 in (38–57 mm)

 

Comments?  Additions?

1923:

 

After modernization:

Line Drawing

[mr3awsome]

N3 and G3 Battleships and battle cruisers for the RN

:wub:

[Redwing6]

mr3awsome, on 18 August 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

N3 and G3 Battleships and battle cruisers for the RN
:wub:

And the G3 class...someone have pics?
Type: Battlecruiser Displacement: 48,400 long tons (49,200 t) (normal)
53,909 long tons (54,774 t) (deep load) Length: 856 ft (260.9 m) Beam: 106 ft (32.3 m) Draught: 35 ft 8 in (10.9 m) (at deep load) Installed power: 160,000 shp (120,000 kW) Propulsion: four shafts, 4 geared steam turbines, 20 small-tube boilers Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph) Range: 7,000 nautical miles (13,000 km; 8,100 mi) at 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph) Complement: 1716 Armament: 3 × 3 - 16-inch (406 mm) guns
8 × 2 - 6-inch (152 mm) guns
6 × 1 - 4.7-inch (120 mm) AA guns
4 × 10 - barrel 2-pdr pom-pom mountings
2 × 24.5-inch (622 mm) torpedo tubes Armour: Belt: 12–14 in (305–356 mm)
Deck: 3–8 in (76–203 mm)
Barbettes: 11–14 in (279–356 mm)
Turrets: 13–17 in (330–432 mm)
Conning tower: 8 in (203 mm)
Bulkheads: 10–12 in (254–305 mm)



Here's the N3 class:
Type: Dreadnought battleship Displacement: about 48,000 long tons (49,000 t) Length: 815 ft (248.4 m) Beam: 106 ft (32.3 m) Draught: 33 ft (10.1 m) (at deep load) Installed power: 56,000 shp (42,000 kW) Propulsion: two shafts, 2 geared steam turbine sets Speed: 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph) Armament: 3 × 3 - 18-inch (457 mm) guns
8 × 2 - 6-inch (152 mm) guns
6 × 1 - 4.7-inch (120 mm) AA guns
4 × 10 - barrel 2-pdr pom-pom mountings
2 × 24.5-inch (622 mm) torpedo tubes Armour:
Belt: 13.5–15 in (343–381 mm)
Deck: 6–8 in (152–203 mm)
Barbettes: 15 in (381 mm)
Turrets: 10–18 in (254–457 mm)
Conning tower: 15 in (381 mm)
Bulkheads: 9–14 in (229–356 mm)

[cipher12]

It looks like an American naval officer was shown a picture of Hood and thought "Hay that looks pretty cool we could do with one of those to"

[BlackAngelCom]

The N3 can't actually be done, naval treaty or not. You cannot scale up from 9x16" to 9x18" on a hull built for the 9x16" setup. Every caliber increase in history has led to design bloat.

[mr3awsome]

Speaking of Hood

Possibly the other 3 Admiral Class Battle Cruisers

[cipher12]

I'd love to see how Hood would of looked like if it where modernized.

[mr3awsome]

BlackAngelCom, on 18 August 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

The N3 can't actually be done, naval treaty or not. You cannot scale up from 9x16" to 9x18" on a hull built for the 9x16" setup. Every caliber increase in history has led to design bloat.

N3 is  not a scaled up version of anything

[mr3awsome]

cipher12, on 18 August 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

I'd love to see how Hood would of looked like if it where modernized.

Hood was modernised between 1st May 1929 and 10th March 1931 ,in Nov/Dec 1937
and for the last time from January and August 1939.
She was due for major overhaul in 1941.

[BlackAngelCom]

mr3awsome, on 18 August 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

N3 is  not a scaled up version of anything

N3 and G3 use the same general hull shape, same turret layout, the same beam and have similar ~ 48,000 ton displacement.

Mounting 9x18" on a hull that size is not possible. The Japanese and Americans independenty concluded as much; the American design assessment was that an Iowa hull could support at most five guns of that caliber.

[Drakenred]

BlackAngelCom, on 18 August 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

The N3 can't actually be done, naval treaty or not. You cannot scale up from 9x16" to 9x18" on a hull built for the 9x16" setup. Every caliber increase in history has led to design bloat.

the only 18 inch versions of the N series Im aware of were 1X18 turret layouts.

There were O and P design studies that had 2X18s and 3X18s but from what I have read they were not as far along as the H-43/44 design studies

Interestingly enough the US navy actualy built a pair of wave tank hull displacment modles of a 4 turret 2X18 battleship that would have been roughly the size of the Montana. from what I remember the asumption was that the armor was "all or nothing" based on the Nevada class but it was layed out with turreted 8 2X6 inch guns or 10 2X5inch gunmounts.

The main problem though was that the "super 18" that the Navy was looking at was not realy a big enough improvment, the ROF for it was horible, the shells and powder weighed too mutch, even with the low rate of fire the barrel was obviously overheating and on top of everything else the wear on it was sutch that they would have to literaly dismout the guns for repair after each gunnery exercise.

[BlackAngelCom]

Montana (essentialy the same displacement and beam as Yamato) is likely big enough to have four double 18" turrets in place of the four triple 16."

[mr3awsome]

BlackAngelCom, on 18 August 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

N3 and G3 use the same general hull shape, same turret layout, the same beam and have similar ~ 48,000 ton displacement.

Mounting 9x18" on a hull that size is not possible. The Japanese and Americans independenty concluded as much; the American design assessment was that an Iowa hull could support at most five guns of that caliber.

And Americans can never be wrong can they?
anyway other factors effect design not just the guns

[Redwing6]

I suspect that the British battleship designers who designed the N3 class battleships might have thought they were possible....

 

 

Quote

A pair of designs were prepared in June 1920, derived from the U-4 design of 1914, of ships with displacements of about 50,000 long tons (51,000 t) and armed with eight or nine guns, in four twin or three triple gun turrets mounting a new 18-inch (457 mm) gun then under development. The only limitation of the design was the inability to use British dockyards and pass through the Suez Canal. The most unusual feature of these designs was that none of the turrets were superfiring, presumably to keep the centre of gravity as low as possible[3] and avoid the extra weight required for tall, superfiring barbettes.[4]

 

The designs were revised in October and split into separate battleship and battlecruiser designs. The battleship designs were given letters of the alphabet from L through N, with the use of triple or double gun turrets shown by 3 or 2 respectively. Both 'L2' and 'L3' had superfiring guns and the armour was reduced to a 15-inch (381 mm) inclined waterline belt while the main armoured deck was 8 inches (203 mm) thick (9 inches (229 mm) where it sloped to meet the belt). They both had a designed speed of 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph) and had transom sterns. 'L2' displaced 52,100 long tons (52,900 t), but 'L3' was a thousand tons lighter. 'M2' and 'M3' followed in November and December and were very different from the earlier designs.[5]

 

'M2' and 'M3' sacrificed fire directly astern by moving the rear turret(s) amidships in order to save weight by shortening the length of the armoured citadel. Compared to the earlier, more conventional, designs, 'M2' saved 1,540 long tons (1,560 t) and 'M3' 1,740 long tons (1,770 t).[6] More weight was saved by reducing the designed speed to 23–23.5 knots (43–43.5 km/h; 26–27.0 mph) and using only two propeller shafts, although it was thought that this would improve manoeuvering power over four smaller propellers. These changes saved 4,350 long tons (4,420 t) for 'M2' and 5,000 long tons (5,100 t) for 'M3' over their predecessors. A lengthened version of 'M3' was chosen for further development as N3 and approved in November 1921.[7]

 

Most noticeable of the N3 design was the concentration of the main battery forward of the bridge and machinery spaces. A related feature of the design was the tower bridge structure behind the first two gun turrets. This provided a better and more stable foundation for fire-control equipment, greatly improved accommodation and protection from the weather.[8]

 

The N3 battleships were significantly larger than their predecessors of the Revenge class. They had an overall length of 820 feet (249.9 m), a beam of 106 feet (32.3 m), and a draught of 33 feet (10.1 m) at deep load. They would have displaced about 48,500 long tons (49,300 t), nearly double the displacement of the older ships. They had a complete double bottom 7 feet (2.1 m) deep.[9]

 

The ships would have had two geared steam turbine sets, each of which drove one propeller shaft, in two engine rooms forward of the boiler rooms. This allowed the funnel to be placed further aft and increased the ability of the rear turret to fire to the rear. The turbines would have been powered by small-tube boilers intended to produce a total of 56,000 shaft horsepower (42,000 kW). The ships' maximum speed would have been about 23 knots.[10]

 

Housing the main armament in triple turrets was new to the Royal Navy though British companies had been involved in the production of triple gun turret designs for other navies.[11] The choice of a high muzzle velocity with a relatively lighter shell was taken from the German practice; it ran counter to previous British guns such as the BL 15-inch Mark I gun of 42-calibre length which were lower-muzzle-velocity weapons firing heavy shells.[12]

 

[BlackAngelCom]

The N3 was a serious design proposal, but - and this is a big but -  the British never moved the intended 18/45 gun beyond paper. The Americans, after first determining that an 18/48 wasn't a practical weapon even if it wasn't illegal under the Naval Treaty, did ultimately build an 18/47 test gun. They found that the weight of a triple 18" turret would be 40% greater than the triple turret 16/50, with similar increases in bulk and mass of the rest of the mounting assembly. The Japanese experience with the Yamato - 2700 ton turrets for a triple 18/45 - confirms this weapon bloat.

 

The British G3/Nelson triple 16/45 turret by comparison masses 1,480 tons, both of them mounted on a 106' beam. The N3 is supposed to have the same displacement as the G3, and the same beam as both the G3 and the Nelson (and its turrets weren't intended to be particularly weakly armored, either). The math on this just doesn't work.

 

In an alternate universe, the British probably could have built the N3, but it would have had to be redesigned after the guns were actually made. Such a redesign is either dropping one gun per turret or alternatively increasing the beam and designed displacement.

[cipher12]

Physics be damned man I want my roid up Nelson  >: (

[Goldeneye54]

What I wonder about is if there were no treaties what ships would of looked liked beyond what they had planned. I assume after the treaties nations changed there designing around, but if that didn't happen I wonder what shops would of been around at the beginning of the war.

[Enaris]

Goldeneye55, on 18 August 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

What I wonder about is if there were no treaties what ships would of looked liked beyond what they had planned. I assume after the treaties nations changed there designing around, but if that didn't happen I wonder what shops would of been around at the beginning of the war.

That's an interesting question, and it's fairly hard to say.  One thing in all of this is that there are no guarantees that all of these would have been built even without the Treaty.  One of the things that led to the treaty is the collective heart attacks of the various Finance Ministers.  For instance, the Japanese Eight-Eight Fleet Plan would have called for 8 BB and 8 BC.  Honestly, building all of that would have pushed the Japanese economy to the wall. (Especially after the Kanto Plain quake).

For that matter, in the post treaty era, it was extremely difficult to get funding at even the reduced fleet sizes to build everything.  If you read Jordan's Warships after Washington, one of the continuing refrains is that the various fleet asked for a certain number of ships (often treaty cruisers), which the politicans would then reduce, delay or outright eliminate.

So, what would that have meant for some of the more exotic designs out there?  Tough question to be sure, especially after 1929 and the Depression.  My suspicion is that we would have seen a few things along the line of the Nelson.  Intermediate designs using the best technology of the day, but in limited numbers.

[Windhover118]

In the aftermath of WWI many countries economies had been devestated. Great Britian had to maintain a large navy because they had obligations around the world but their ship designs suffered. Even without the treaties, naval development would have been slow due to the economic downturn which was further compounded by the Great Depression in the 1930s. Without the treaties, countrys like Japan and Italy would have probably jumped ahead of France, Great Britian and the US. This likely would have prompted the other world powers to devote resources to new ship designs but wether or not they would have been built in any significant number is hard to say. It is possible that the US would have started fortifying islands like Wake and Guam a lot sooner but this is difficult to say given the fact that the US didnt really get involved in military development until the few years before the outbreak of the war.

[JeeWeeJ]

Well, one thing's for sure: whole countries would go bankrupt. Just the German dreadnoughts of thier WW1 hochseeflotte had a combined cost of about $267 million in 1914 dollars. (source) At that time a bread cost 5 cents just to compare it with something. And it heavily indebted the then economic and industrial powerhouse of Europe of that time. To have another naval arms race so soon after WW1 would break the economy of at least Great Brittain and perhaps of the US. (but that one wasnt damaged as much by WW1)

 

But its fun to wonder about it, thats for sure. :)

 

[EDIT]

Small afterburner here: it could also result in more economical ships. The UK built the Revenge class (or Royal Sovereign class as it was also known) as a cheaper but just as capable version of the Queen Elizabeth class. Maybe they would continue on this path by building cheaper yet better ships. German ships also got considerably cheaper as time progressed, a Kaiser class dreadnought cost around 228 million goldmark (~$54 million) but the far superior Bayern class cost "only" 100 million goldmark (~$23 million).

 

Still a whole lot of money though...enough to feed an entire country just for just one ship.

[/EDIT]

[Drakenred]

mr3awsome, on 18 August 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

And Americans can never be wrong can they?
anyway other factors effect design not just the guns

um lets review, Great Brittain, Japan And the US all basicaly aggreed that it was not practical to put 9X18in rifles of any usefull caliber on a <50,000 ton displacment hull and have balanced armor even on the all or nothing design. Japan went further and actualy planned out a hull that was proof against only 12 inch shells mouting 8 guns on double turrets and found they could not do it either....so why are you jumping on the US?

[Megan_Fox]

Hmmm very interesting

[Redwing6]

Drakenred, on 18 August 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

um lets review, Great Brittain, Japan And the US all basicaly aggreed that it was not practical to put 9X18in rifles of any usefull caliber on a <50,000 ton displacment hull and have balanced armor even on the all or nothing design. Japan went further and actualy planned out a hull that was proof against only 12 inch shells mouting 8 guns on double turrets and found they could not do it either....so why are you jumping on the US?

That's not what was agreed to at all...the Naval treaty was implemented to stop what would have become a huge arms race between the three preeminent naval powers of the world at that time.  Both the US and UK developed battle plans on how to fight each other if it came to it under what were then current building plans.  American plans were coded by color.  I believe Plan Orange was the plan to fight the Royal Navy...

Thus, both countries pressured Japan to join them in the treaty...to stave off that horrendously expensive naval arms race.  At no point did any country say 18" guns were impossible to mount upon naval ships.  After all, the Japanese proved it was possible.  Even the Germans during WW2 developed plans to mount 20" guns on the H44 class (I believe) ships...such ships wouldhave been huge, on the order of the Yamato class, 70k+ tonne ships.  The only way to mount 18" guns on the 50k tonne ships would have been double turrets, not the triples most of the design plans drew upon.  So it was possible, it would have been extraordinarily expensive, but it could have happened.

[strelkov16]

treaties always getting in the way

[Crag_r]

strelkov16, on 20 August 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

treaties always getting in the way

Those Pesky little Treaties!!!!