Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 225" video.
-
@pyronuke4768 I found an interesting clause in Second London: minimum values for a "capital ship": 17,000 tons and 10" guns. Anything smaller than than runs into the maximums for a cruiser: 10,000 tons and 8" guns. Second London does not explicitly limit the number of ships of a type, but the limit, is implicit, as the only mention of an exception to replacing ships when they age out, by the rules of the treaty, is when a ship is lost or destroyed by accident. Germany's Panzerschiff were exempt, because Germany was not a party to the naval treaty system when they were built. The Panzerschiff complied with the limits imposed by the Versailles treaty. Another factor is how much the county's industrial base for building warships had deteriorated between the wars. To complete the KGVs, between 40 and 42, they had to order the 14" guns in December 35. Some of the armor for the KGVs had to be contracted out to a company in Czechoslovakia. A couple weeks ago, I fired up SpringSharp to see what I could come up with, if the Admiralty had kept the armor and 13.5" armament when the Iron Dukes were scrapped, and needed something quick and cheap. I used the length and beam of Renown, deepened the draft 3 feet to improve beam strength of the hull, installed a KGV power plant, as it was already designed and in production, 5" deck armor, assuming it was bought out, maybe US STS, with 4 Iron Duke main turrets and the Iron Duke belt armor. The Iron Duke belt was skimpy, a narrow 12" band at the waterline, with 8" above. Outside of the skimpy belt, it worked out really well. SpringSharp gave a top speed of 29kts, stable gun platform, good sea boat, roomy and comfortable for the crew. The displacement came out over your 25,000. It was somewhere in the low 30s, within treaty limits. With your 25,000 limit, you will probably come up with something like Dunkerque. Roughly the same armor, armament, and speed, as my "HMS Expendable", but Dunkerque had the compromised armament layout, and everything was custom made and, thus, optimal, but expensive. Mine has a more flexible 2 twin turrets at each end, and is quick and cheap to build due to extensive use of existing material.
2
-
@pyronuke4768 I understand what you are going for. We have to be mindful of the existing constraints. If you wait until the haggis hits the fan, to render the treaty irrelevant, you end up with something like the Alaskas, ordered in 40, but, by the time they are in commission, almost all of the IJN cruisers they were intended to kill had already been sunk. We need something that can commission in 40-41, which means it must be started during Second London. The RN was in a good position to build a lot of capital ships, except it didn't have the industrial capacity anymore. Second London said capital ships age out at 26 years. That means the RN can commission one ship in 40, two in 41, and 8 in 42. The UK only had the capacity to build the 5 KGVs new, from the keel up, not the 11 ships they could have commissioned. In the USN, Arkansas aged out in 38, the New Yorks in 40, and the Nevadas in 42, a total of 5, but, over that period, the US built 2 North Carolinas and 4 South Dakotas, so, looking at the situation from 1937, they had no more "replaceable" ships. The Italians, if they were abiding by Second London, could have called Roma and Impero replacements for two Cavours, leaving the two Dorias eligible to be replaced in 42. If you want to be Japanese, Russian or Dutch, you can do anything you want. The material you can buy from other countries would probably be limited by national security concerns of the selling countries. You are unlikely to be able to buy the latest and greatest guns and high pressure power plants from anyone you wish. Example, Vanguard was laid down 2 years after the South Dakotas, but Vanguard's plant ran at 350psi, rather than the 600psi of the South Dakota plant. There is also a logistics problem Different country's guns use different propellant. When the Admiralty bought some US made 14" in 1914, they had to buy US smokeless powder for them through the war. They tried RN cordite, but saw a significant loss of muzzle velocity and range. If you want to be the USN, you need to wait until Congress decided to ignore the treaty limits in mid 38. Then grab as much off the shelf hardware as possible, to speed construction, so they are in commission in 41. The USN had an abundance of new 14"/50s on the shelf. Maybe combine some of them with a 120,000hp Hornet powerplant. I have great fun with alt history scenarios, but, I dig into the details to see what was realistically possible.
2
-
@johnshepherd9676 If the US had built the South Dakotas, that means an individual ship limit of some 42-43,000 tons, instead of 35,000. So the Admiralty would not have built the Nelsons. They probably would have proceeded with the G3s, as they had been formally ordered, and complied with the 16" gun limit, which the N3s did not. Probably with some corners cut to reduce the displacement to the low 40s. The SoDaks would have a third more guns, throwing slightly heavier shells, with a larger bursting charge, at higher velocity, with a higher rate of fire per gun, and the after turrets would have a wider firing arc. On the other hand, the G3s could steam rings around the SoDaks. If they were forced to go toe to toe, I would give it to the SoDaks, because they can throw so much steel.
1
-
@johnshepherd9676 OK, you are talking complete replacement, so the USN makes a quantum leap in size, speed, and firepower, from the Tennessees, to the SoDaks, on the schedule that the Colorados historically occupied. That means Iowa, the one assigned to Newport News, would be laid down in April 1917, because News had the slipway available. The other ships would be suspended for the duration of the war, as the Colorados were. Laid down in 1919, the other SoDaks would be incomplete at the time of the treaty, and, exceeding the 35,000 ton limit, would not be allowed to complete. If the SoDaks replace the Tennessees as well, that means SoDak is laid down in Brooklyn in May 17, and Montana is laid down at Mare Island October 16. So three are complete before the treaty goes into effect. If the US had one SoDak, I think the Brits would call it a wash with Hood.
In my readings on the Washington conference, the UK suggested a 43,000 ton limit for individual ships. It was the US that insisted on the hard 35,000 limit. So, if anyone else had 43,000 tonners, the UK would certainly insist they have a sufficient number of ships of that size, for parity. If the US had three SoDaks complete, the Brits would demand two more 43,000 ton ships, for parity, which brings us back to two somewhat slimmed down G3s. More Admirals, or J3s, would only mount 15" guns, and the UK would want 16". for parity. Of course, all this between the US and UK is not happening in a vacuum. If the UK and US both had 43,000 tonners, the Japanese would demand they be allowed to complete one or both Tosas, for proportional parity.
Getting back to your original SoDak vs Nelson question, the previous gunnery assessment stands: the SoDaks way outgun whatever the UK had in the works. G3s would have a significant speed advantage over the SoDaks, the Nelsons would not. The G3s could run away before they were crippled, the Nelsons could not.
1
-
1
-
Drac, re the time delay on questions, when I ask a question, I write it down, with the date that I asked it. I don't have a problem waiting a year, with one exception: sometimes, in the interim, I have found an answer to the question. and would like to delete my question. For instance, last October, on Drydock 216, I asked who made the decision to put 14" guns on the KGVs. I am now satisfied that the decision was made by First Sea Lord Chatfield, and I would like to withdraw that question. I also deleted a question on the piece about Jervis Bay a day after I posted it, as I found an answer. How should we communicate to you to delete a question you may have selected for answer? The first solution that comes to my mind is for you to backcheck that a question is still on the post, before you research it, unless you think it would be informative for the rest of the community.
1