Optimal Navies for Great Powers

[iddt3]

I've seen a lot thrown back and forth on what ships were mistakes, dead ends, proof of the existence and malevolence of the Devil (I'm looking at you Alaskas) and all around bad ideas. So what would be an optimal Navy? Lets Break it down to pre WWI (Say around 1908 or so) and pre WWII (Say around 1934) for a great power with colonies to defend.

Based on what I've heard on the board for example, it sounds like the optimal navy for say GB pre WWII would be a cruiser carrier navy, given that carriers were far less expensive then battleships, and by the mid 30's just as effective and the need to cover lots of territory, why should GB, or any great power build battleships period? And the argument for battle-cruisers is even weaker, considering they cost about as much as battleships and were far less flexible.

 

[Mike D]

The problem is that it's very easy to say the Royal Navy should have loads of carriers and cruisers and no battleships/battlecruisers (which goes for all other navies too).

The reality was that the world was coming through the worst financial collapse in history in the 1930s, there was no money for building a whole new fleet (and the carrier hadn't proved itself in battle yet to show admirals that they should spend a lot of money replacing their beloved big gun ships).

Ideally you're probably right and the RN (and probably the US and Japan as the other major naval powers) would have been far better off building carriers, cruisers and escorts and wasting their battleships/battlecruisers of service but that's with the hindsight of 80 years. Back then a lot of people still thought that the naval war would be one of two battlelines recreating Trafalgar (although a lot further apart) or what Jutland should have been and the carriers would be a recce platform more than a genuine threat to the behemoths in the gun line.

 

[iddt3]

That's the appeal of carriers; they're cheaper. If you're doing the budget for the Royal Navy in 1935, given the reality of limited budget and sprawling empire, doesn't it make sense to go for the options that let you cover more ground? Update the old BBs of course, but don't build any new ones.
*edit* also at what point do planes start being able to carry and deliver 500 lbs at a useful range? I'd say that's the point when it becomes it becomes possible for a reasonably perceptive observer / policy maker to conclude that carriers and battleships have become equivalent.

 

[David S Poepoe]

That's the appeal of carriers; they're cheaper. If you're doing the budget for the Royal Navy in 1935, given the reality of limited budget and sprawling empire, doesn't it make sense to go for the options that let you cover more ground? Update the old BBs of course, but don't build any new ones.

No. It could be argued that the Royal Navy kept too many of its older battleships and was overburdened with too many of its older carriers that couldn't be replaced because of finances.

 

[iddt3]

No. It could be argued that the Royal Navy kept too many of its older battleships and was overburdened with too many of its older carriers that couldn't be replaced because of finances.

How much did it cost a reno an old battleship vs building a new one? How much did battleships cost to operate relative to other ships?
The other benefit of Carriers vs Battleships is they can be built faster, so if you're focusing on Carriers you can cycle the old ones out more quickly/assign them to secondary theaters, and react more quickly to the threat of war.

 

[wietze]

and not to forget submarines

 

[David S Poepoe]

How much did it cost a reno an old battleship vs building a new one? How much did battleships cost to operate relative to other ships?
The other benefit of Carriers vs Battleships is they can be built faster, so if you're focusing on Carriers you can cycle the old ones out more quickly/assign them to secondary theaters, and react more quickly to the threat of war.

For an optimal navy you wouldn't concentrate on carriers. You would have a 'balanced' fleet of capital ships, cruisers, destroyers, tenders etc. The British could have scrapped the Royal Sovereign class and recycled their armament into new ships.

 

[Saphroneth]

How much did it cost a reno an old battleship vs building a new one? How much did battleships cost to operate relative to other ships?
The other benefit of Carriers vs Battleships is they can be built faster, so if you're focusing on Carriers you can cycle the old ones out more quickly/assign them to secondary theaters, and react more quickly to the threat of war.

Major renovations - about half the cost of a new one. Minor refits - about 10%.

 

[iddt3]

For an optimal navy you wouldn't concentrate on carriers. You would have a 'balanced' fleet of capital ships, cruisers, destroyers, tenders etc. The British could have scrapped the Royal Sovereign class and recycled their armament into new ships.

Well yes, of course, I'm focusing just on the Carrier battleship dicotomy. If for every two battleships and support vessels the UK could have three carriers, three cruisers, and support vessels, then the carriers and cruisers seem like a no brainier.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Optimal navies depend on what the other guy's doing.

If Power A has loads and loads of subs, Power B needs loads of sub hunters - corvettes, frigates, destroyers.

If Power A goes for a massive battleship fleet, Power B needs to counter that.

Etc.

 

[iddt3]

Major renovations - about half the cost of a new one. Minor refits - about 10%.

So for the price of fully renovating an old battleship, they could have a new carrier.

 

[iddt3]

Optimal navies depend on what the other guy's doing.

If Power A has loads and loads of subs, Power B needs loads of sub hunters - corvettes, frigates, destroyers.

If Power A goes for a massive battleship fleet, Power B needs to counter that.

Etc.

Well to a certain extent thats true, but I'm focusing on the major colonial powers. They can't just spam subs as they need to protect trade too and from their colonies as well, and this is true for their rivals. Only purely continental powers like NAZI Germany can fool around too much with really weird fleets, everyone else has broadly the same requirements.