Cruiser armament without the Washington Treaty
- Thread starter Landshark
- Start date
Well the RN would have the Hawkins class which mounted 7.5 inch guns, serving as station flagships (with no WNT there are a number of BC that could fill this role as well) but would probably keep the 6 inch guns in the successor class to the Emeralds. So unless there is a shift in policy, the RN probably keeps the 6 inch as the main cruiser gun on its more numerous, but smaller cruisers (around the 7k ton mark) which would start being laid down towards the late 1920s.
8" is a logical stop point for a cruiser. It allows for a good size main battery, enough power to at least give a 1916 BB some trouble, if not being instantly fatal (see the damage that San Francisco dealt to the Kirishima as an example) some weight/space to put in a secondary/quick firing battery and enough range to engage at a distance.
The difference in weight between an 8" gun and a 10" gun is enormous (around 30,000 pounds per gun, or close to double the weight of the smaller gun) this means you need larger, heavier carriages/mounts, more robust hoists, etc. A ship that can happily handle 3x3 8" turrets would be hard pressed to handle 4 10". 12" are even worse, coming anywhere from three to four times the weight per tube. A 10" gun is also 8-12 FEET longer than a similar 8", while a 12 inch is 50% longer.
What would probably have happened without a Washington Treaty is that some sort of "Large Cruiser" would have evolved as a bridge between true capital ships and the scouting force.
What the mix between 6" and 8" cruisers might have been is an interesting question, one that would see different decisions based on national needs.
The difference in weight between an 8" gun and a 10" gun is enormous (around 30,000 pounds per gun, or close to double the weight of the smaller gun) this means you need larger, heavier carriages/mounts, more robust hoists, etc. A ship that can happily handle 3x3 8" turrets would be hard pressed to handle 4 10". 12" are even worse, coming anywhere from three to four times the weight per tube. A 10" gun is also 8-12 FEET longer than a similar 8", while a 12 inch is 50% longer.
What would probably have happened without a Washington Treaty is that some sort of "Large Cruiser" would have evolved as a bridge between true capital ships and the scouting force.
What the mix between 6" and 8" cruisers might have been is an interesting question, one that would see different decisions based on national needs.
Delta Force
Banned
They would have eventually started building supercruisers with 9.4" or 10" main guns. I don't see it going much past that though. A 10" gun is all you need to destroy a heavy cruiser, and mounting anything larger greatly increases minimum ship size to the point where you are building a light battlecruiser.
Battlecruisers...
After the battlecruiser was developed, the heavy cruiser was not a very viable ship. Even one battlecruiser leading a scout force would ruin heavy cruisers--and the heavy cruisers are big enough to be very hittable. Light cruisers--avle to shater destroyers, and deal with raiders--would--as in the pre-treaty era, remain viable.
Politics and funds will play a big part in things. For example, a Congress that didn't want to fund adequate small ships might get the US Navy to request battlecruisers. Each nation will have to build based in part on what the potential enemies are building. Could go in many different directions...
After the battlecruiser was developed, the heavy cruiser was not a very viable ship. Even one battlecruiser leading a scout force would ruin heavy cruisers--and the heavy cruisers are big enough to be very hittable. Light cruisers--avle to shater destroyers, and deal with raiders--would--as in the pre-treaty era, remain viable.
Politics and funds will play a big part in things. For example, a Congress that didn't want to fund adequate small ships might get the US Navy to request battlecruisers. Each nation will have to build based in part on what the potential enemies are building. Could go in many different directions...
Rubicon
Banned
Do the rest of the stipulations of the WNT still stand? I.e. in regards to capital ships and the displacement tonnage of cruisers?
If so 'crusiers' will settle on the highest possible caliber capable of being fitted on the biggest possible hull. I'd guess somewhere around 10-11" in the same area as the German Panzerschiffe.
If so 'crusiers' will settle on the highest possible caliber capable of being fitted on the biggest possible hull. I'd guess somewhere around 10-11" in the same area as the German Panzerschiffe.
Thing about battle cruisers is that they cost as much as a battleships, if not slightly more. Prior to the advent of nuclear powered aircraft carriers battleships were the most expensive items in a military budget (Iowa and her sisters came in a $100M each in 1943 dollars or ~$1B in today's dollars). You would need to construct 40 or more BC to replace the heavy cruiser in the scouting role. No country can afford that sort of fleet. No matter what Jackie Fischer believed a BC looks like a BB, has the firepower of a BB, it is going to be treated like a BB.
The RN figured that out, that is why the G3 class was a battleship with cruiser speed, making her a fast BB in all but name (their raw stats are remarkably similar to the Iowa class, albeit to a very different design). USN & IJN ships showed a similar pattern, although the U.S. design was less robustly protected. No one was going to send these ships out solo (well, the KM might, but their perspective on the use of capital ships was fairly unique).
That means cruisers as a scouting force with some routine escorting going to cruisers thanks to their range.
From what I recall from both Lacroix & Welles book on Japanese cruisers, as well as Freidman's US cruiser volume, both the USN & IJN were looking at cruisers with 8" guns as not just a counter to Hawkins, but also something that could overwhelm 6" cruisers with long-range gunfire & IIRC, the USN's design studies were moving towards ships larger than 10k, with 8" guns, speeds in the vicinity of 34 kts, & in the larger designs, protection against destroyer gunfire, as well as range similar to that of the historical treaty cruisers for the scouting role when the WNT negotiations took place. Kind of an open question whether they would have been used as commerce raiders or in the trade protection roles as well, & how many of them would have been bought.
Delta Force
Banned
That's where supercruisers come in. They would be more powerful than heavy cruisers and more affordable than even the old battlecruisers. Basically, they would be like the armored cruisers of old. A handful might be procured to hunt down heavy cruisers, but they wouldn't be heavy cruiser replacements due to their greater expense. Trying outdo a supercruiser would lead to light battlecruisers such as the Alaska class, at which point you might as well just build a real battlecruiser or fast battleship.
When they were no longer bound by the treaty, it looks like most navies stuck with 8 inch guns but cruiser weights went up a little to 13,000-15,000 tons. The exception was the US Alaska class, which went to 12 inch guns, but also went to the bottom end of battleship-type weight, and didn't really find much role in the war.
Britain wanted to push everyone to 6 inch cruiser guns, partly because that would mean that when they converted merchant ships into auxiliary cruisers, those ships wouldn't be outgunned by enemy cruisers and partly because Britain's imperial interests were better served by a lot of light cruisers rather than fewer heavy ones.
Britain wanted to push everyone to 6 inch cruiser guns, partly because that would mean that when they converted merchant ships into auxiliary cruisers, those ships wouldn't be outgunned by enemy cruisers and partly because Britain's imperial interests were better served by a lot of light cruisers rather than fewer heavy ones.
The USSR went for 180mm as a compromise. A naval equivalent of the (later) German 17cm field gun might have been a good solution for a 8000t to 10000t cruiser.
The french put their Army 155GPF on their first post WW1 light Cruisers. The larger 220GPF might have been used for an enlarged design on a similar logic.
An intermediate class btw cruiser and battle cruiser (an enlarged Hipper with four twin 11'' turretes as a follow on to the Deutschland class?) might have been a possibility...
The french put their Army 155GPF on their first post WW1 light Cruisers. The larger 220GPF might have been used for an enlarged design on a similar logic.
An intermediate class btw cruiser and battle cruiser (an enlarged Hipper with four twin 11'' turretes as a follow on to the Deutschland class?) might have been a possibility...
6in is a logical calibre even without the WT, since it's the largest gun that can be handloaded without the crew suffering hernias etc. The IJN wanted a 5.5in limit - and they were already using this calibre - due to the smaller stature of most of their sailors.
At the time there were not, AFAIK, any power-loaded 6in installations - were the Nelsons the pioneer of this, with their secondary armament?
At the time there were not, AFAIK, any power-loaded 6in installations - were the Nelsons the pioneer of this, with their secondary armament?
Much of the cruiserdevelopment depended on what role the cruiser was to have in various navies. Classical cruiser mission profiles asked for a flexible multirole vessel, capable of operating alone and in a group, with a very high speed and some protection to its vitals mostly, though not necessarily.
The British developped the cruiser as a warshiptype propably the best, as their cruisers in general would have a QF main armament, which in times of a powerfailure could be operated manually. This last requirement settled their overall maximum caliber on 6 inch, or something around that, since the 100 lbs 6 inch shell, was generally thought to be the heaviest sort of shell, capable of being man carried.
Heavier guncallibers were mainly thought of when a cruiser was to act as a sort of commerce raider, or for a type of cruiser intended to fight other heavily armored targets, when protecting trade or so. For a normal cruiser, this sort of unwieldy complex mechanically, powered guns were a liability in most cases and the Royal Navy was not very entusiastic about it. Other navies, with a different idea wanted this larger calliber on cruiser, for mainly political reasons (namely: the opposition had them, so they must have it too. See USA and Japan). Such larger callibers were hardly practical in cruisers intended to perform in a cruiser role, though the Japanese and USA mainly constructed these cruisers, as they were thought of as substitudes for battleships, which were banned to be build, by the treaty. The Royal Navy only reluctantly follewed this armamentsrace, as the british wanted numbers of cruisers, not the largest types of cruisers, as they ate too much of hte available tonnage allowed for cruiserconstruction.
If no limmitations would have been agreed uppon, the most logical development would have been somwhat simmilar to the pre Great War period in Dreadnought and battlecruisers, getting bigger, with ever growing firepower, to the limmit of the technical capabilities. The german Heavy cruisers of the Deutschland Class give a good idea of what a cruiser could become eventually, a heavy type of commerceraiding cruiser, with oversized guns, on a cruiser type hull, with speed to outrun anything stronger and guns heavy enough to outgun anything faster (at least theoretically). The British would have settled on a much larger number of smaller cruisers, around the 5,000 to 8,000 ton size, all armed with QF guns of around 6 inch, or less, depending on the main role some cruisertypes (like the development of the CLAA). 6 inch was perfect for the roles the british thought off, as the sheer volume of steel the 6 inch QF could throw into the air in a short time more than compensated the lack of shellweight, as all cruiser, no matter which ones, were still vulnerable to shells of 100lbs or so. The USN too had to learn the hard way in WW2 that their lack of 6 inch armed cruisers in the early stages of the war, proved this in the scarry battles in the first year of war.
Logcally the end of the line in cruiserdevelopment would be the already existing battlecruiser, as the same sort of cruiser armamentsrace had been played in the years up to 1906, when Admiral Fisher came up with the Invincible class "Dreadnought Cruisers".
The British developped the cruiser as a warshiptype propably the best, as their cruisers in general would have a QF main armament, which in times of a powerfailure could be operated manually. This last requirement settled their overall maximum caliber on 6 inch, or something around that, since the 100 lbs 6 inch shell, was generally thought to be the heaviest sort of shell, capable of being man carried.
Heavier guncallibers were mainly thought of when a cruiser was to act as a sort of commerce raider, or for a type of cruiser intended to fight other heavily armored targets, when protecting trade or so. For a normal cruiser, this sort of unwieldy complex mechanically, powered guns were a liability in most cases and the Royal Navy was not very entusiastic about it. Other navies, with a different idea wanted this larger calliber on cruiser, for mainly political reasons (namely: the opposition had them, so they must have it too. See USA and Japan). Such larger callibers were hardly practical in cruisers intended to perform in a cruiser role, though the Japanese and USA mainly constructed these cruisers, as they were thought of as substitudes for battleships, which were banned to be build, by the treaty. The Royal Navy only reluctantly follewed this armamentsrace, as the british wanted numbers of cruisers, not the largest types of cruisers, as they ate too much of hte available tonnage allowed for cruiserconstruction.
If no limmitations would have been agreed uppon, the most logical development would have been somwhat simmilar to the pre Great War period in Dreadnought and battlecruisers, getting bigger, with ever growing firepower, to the limmit of the technical capabilities. The german Heavy cruisers of the Deutschland Class give a good idea of what a cruiser could become eventually, a heavy type of commerceraiding cruiser, with oversized guns, on a cruiser type hull, with speed to outrun anything stronger and guns heavy enough to outgun anything faster (at least theoretically). The British would have settled on a much larger number of smaller cruisers, around the 5,000 to 8,000 ton size, all armed with QF guns of around 6 inch, or less, depending on the main role some cruisertypes (like the development of the CLAA). 6 inch was perfect for the roles the british thought off, as the sheer volume of steel the 6 inch QF could throw into the air in a short time more than compensated the lack of shellweight, as all cruiser, no matter which ones, were still vulnerable to shells of 100lbs or so. The USN too had to learn the hard way in WW2 that their lack of 6 inch armed cruisers in the early stages of the war, proved this in the scarry battles in the first year of war.
Logcally the end of the line in cruiserdevelopment would be the already existing battlecruiser, as the same sort of cruiser armamentsrace had been played in the years up to 1906, when Admiral Fisher came up with the Invincible class "Dreadnought Cruisers".