Could HMAS Australia have been saved from scrapping ?

Owens Z said:
A warship's job is to be lethal to the enemy. Repeatedly coming off as second best against enemy ships of similar size, age, and expense means there is a problem, a problem that cannot be explained away. Battlecruisers designed and built in Germany shrugged off the single torpedo hits and handful of heavy shells that for British battlecruisers would be crippling, or worse.
Click to expand...
With Britain in the WW 1 and 2 era, their major concern wasn't so much being the best as it was being present. For the Royal Navy, the #1 mission was defending commerce in a guerre de course of commerce raiding. Britain had a worldwide empire to run and shipping was the means to make commerce and the economy work. Defending that shipping was the top priority.

Yes, Britain needed a large battle fleet too if they were to engage in a war with another naval power like say, Japan or the US. But against all of their most likely opponents, defending merchant ships at sea and hunting down raiders was going to be job #1.

This meant they needed large numbers of cruiser-type ships that could successfully take on a merchant raider, and by the end of WW 1 escort ships that could defend convoys and hunt down submarines.

With the WNT, Britain at first tried to build expensive 8" cruisers. These were seen as a necessity for use on the Asia stations where they'd be facing similarly armed IJN cruisers. But these were too expensive and consumed too much weight to build in quantity. Thus, the RN reverted to 6" cruisers that were smaller and far more austere. Keeping as many older cruisers as possible, however marginal, in service was equally important for their numbers. They didn't have to be capable of fighting in a fleet action so much as being able to fight and win against a single armed merchant raider.

You have to keep that perspective for British cruiser construction in the interwar years. The same goes for destroyers where numbers were considered far more important than having top notch quality ones in terms of their fitting.
 
Dilandu said:
Well, would the 9.2-inch/50 gun be so much better than later 8-inch/50? The shell weight difference is about 40% at most, and the 8-inch/50 gun have much better projectile design anyway.
Click to expand...
Better projectile design isn't a fair comparison, as the 9.2" would also continue to develop.

The 8"/50 Mk9 was throwing a 290lb SAP shell and a 256lb HE shell. The 9.2"/50 was throwing 380lb shells, HE or AP.

Considering the performance improvement the US got from 335lb AP shells in an 8" gun over the "standard" 260lb shell, I'd think that the 9.2" with their 30% heavier shell would be an equivalent improvement.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Better projectile design isn't a fair comparison, as the 9.2" would also continue to develop.
Click to expand...
Rather doubt that. The 9.2-inch/50 wasn't common weapon, only a few ships used it (the coastal defense 9.2-inch/47 were, AFAIK, incompatible). A development of a new shell design for rarely-used guns isn't exactly most practical solution. Most likely Australians would be stuck with old WW1-era pattern.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The only way it could possibly work is if the powers that be decided that the max cruiser caliber gun was 9.2".
Then the Tiger Cubs could simply be heavily armored cruisers, but I'd suspect that allowing 9.2" guns on cruisers would see all post-treaty ships armed with such.
Click to expand...
Dilandu said:
Or re-arm them with 8-inch turrets.
Click to expand...

The attraction for Australia of a hefty, speedy 'Tiger cub' with eight, nine, or ten 9.2-inch guns would have been that it was distinctly superior to a treaty cruiser, even those of navies like Japan's and Italy's which cheated on the tonnage restriction. The trick is so that the Royal Australian Navy can have two or three such ships, but nobody else can. It was the UK that had offered the 10,000 tons, 8-inch gun limits during Treaty negotiations in Washington DC, which France, Italy, Japan, and the United States approved with little discussion. As mentioned in post #187, bigger limits would have harmed the UK's interests as those were then understood (TA Gardner reminds us above that the UK later tried to get agreement on an even lighter weight). And an increased gun limit for non-capital ships would not be negotiated at exactly 9.2 inches (233.7mm), a caliber used by no one else, but at France's own standard of 240mm, or perhaps the USA's and Italy's and Japan's 10 inches (254mm). So a general change to the Washington Naval Treaty would gain Australia nothing. A change to the Treaty that grants Australia alone special privileges would have been most unlikely. I said there was goodwill back then among the victors of WW1—but not that much goodwill.

Dilandu repeats his earlier suggestion to squeeze down a Tiger cub to fit inside the Treaty's 10,000 ton, 8-inch limits. But this is more or less what was done in real life to build heavy cruisers HMAS Australia and Canberra, or similar riffs on the theme like the proposed Cockatoo design. So what's the point?

The halfway-believable alternatives seem to be completing the Tiger cubs before the Washington Naval Treaty takes effect, or Australia entirely opting out of the Treaty for its navy. Let's see whether Volkodav and/or Oberon have any thoughts.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Side question: what armoring scheme did the UKRN follow? All-or-nothing?
Click to expand...

As far as I know, while British designers and naval officers knew of the US Navy's all-or-nothing armoring schema (as begun in the Nevada class laid down in 1912) during the close relationship of 1917-18, nothing was done until a 1921 test shooting against seized SMS Baden demonstrated that the German battleship's portions of intermediate-thickness armor served no purpose against 15-inch AP shells other than to trip the fuze. All-or-nothing was thereafter incorporated into the Royal Navy's N and G capital ship designs, of which the two Nelson-class battleships resulted.

So all-or-nothing armoring would be yet another good-thing-to-have which a Tiger cub or similar vessel designed and laid down before Jutland would necessarily lack.
 
Owens Z said:
Dilandu repeats his earlier suggestion to squeeze down a Tiger cub to fit inside the Treaty's 10,000 ton, 8-inch limits. But this is more or less what was done in real life to build heavy cruisers HMAS Australia and Canberra, or similar riffs on the theme like the proposed Cockatoo design. So what's the point?
Click to expand...
Basically it would allow Australia to keep those ships without having additional problems with treaty system. Otherwise, it would create significant problems - especially with Americans, who didn't have any battlecruisers, and would view the situation as "Britain wanted to have even more super-cruisers while we have none". Japanese would likely not be happy, too; for them, Australian super-cruisers would be a significant military factor.

To summarize; three Australian semi-capital ships with 9-inch guns would make everyone unhappy. Changing their main guns to 8-inch would solve the problem, because FORMALLY it would go even beyond requirements.
 
Owens Z said:
As far as I know, while British designers and naval officers knew of the US Navy's all-or-nothing armoring schema (as begun in the Nevada class laid down in 1912) during the close relationship of 1917-18, nothing was done until a 1921 test shooting against seized SMS Baden demonstrated that the German battleship's portions of intermediate-thickness armor served no purpose against 15-inch AP shells other than to trip the fuze. All-or-nothing was thereafter incorporated into the Royal Navy's N and G capital ship designs, of which the two Nelson-class battleships resulted.

So all-or-nothing armoring would be yet another good-thing-to-have which a Tiger cub or similar vessel designed and laid down before Jutland would necessarily lack.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

And, well, crud. So much for that idea. I was hoping that it'd be possible to make Tiger Cubs with all-or-nothing armor and at least 8" guns.

Since getting the 9.2" guns is impractical and likely to piss off all the other nations at the Treaty conference, going to something like the USN superheavy 8" shells would be a great help.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And, well, crud. So much for that idea. I was hoping that it'd be possible to make Tiger Cubs with all-or-nothing armor and at least 8" guns.

Since getting the 9.2" guns is impractical and likely to piss off all the other nations at the Treaty conference, going to something like the USN superheavy 8" shells would be a great help.
Click to expand...
That's quite possible; the 8-inch shells are in active production, and Australian order for development of superheavy ones would be of interest for gun-making companies; they won't risk much of their own money, and there would be a clear possibility of more orders from RN, if desgin would looks promising.
 
Owens Z said:
I agree with you. Any ideas about how to get two or three valuable Tiger cub "pocket battleship"-like vessels for the Royal Australian Navy without having those designed and laid down before Jutland (so that the ships don't incorporate hopelessly obsolete features) yet without having those completed after the Washington Naval Treaty takes effect (so that the ships can be Treaty-compliant)?
Click to expand...
The Henderson Plan for an eventual eight battlecruisers or armoured cruisers by the 1930s would have done the job. The plan was completed prewar, all that was needed was for the government of the day to adopt it.
 
  • The Tiger apparently had a superior armour scheme to other battle cruisers (or battlecruisers), including Hood, with compartmentalisation more battleship like than battle cruiser.
  • Following the Henderson plan Australia could have had a couple additional ships under construction and on order before the advent of the Washington Treaty.
  • Australia chose a repeat Implacable over a Lion or even Tiger, based on the recommendation of the RN and cost.
  • A Tiger Armoured Cruiser or Tiger Cub, would have been better value for money for later ships for the RAN, rather than second rate battlecruisers.
  • Ships in service, or under construction prior to the Washington treaty could have been factored into the negotiations. Perhaps a clause where a nation could either employ Battleships / Battle cruisers and treaty 8" cruisers, or no battleships and 8" cruisers, in exchange for being permitted Armoured Cruisers. i.e. 9.2" guns, 25000tons.
 
Volkodav said:
Ships in service, or under construction prior to the Washington treaty could have been factored into the negotiations. Perhaps a clause where a nation could either employ Battleships / Battle cruisers and treaty 8" cruisers, or no battleships and 8" cruisers, in exchange for being permitted Armoured Cruisers. i.e. 9.2" guns, 25000tons.
Click to expand...
It requires Australia to be considered separate nation from Britain - and USA and Japan would certainly demand that any British-Australian defense treaties would be abolished in that case.
 
Dilandu said:
It requires Australia to be considered separate nation from Britain - and USA and Japan would certainly demand that any British-Australian defense treaties would be abolished in that case.
Click to expand...
True but there was apparently no obligation for Australia to offer up HMAS Australia.

Also, the existence of modern armoured cruisers may have changed what a treaty cruiser was. The real world limit was basically a rounded-up Frobisher, which in turn, was the final evolution of the Town Class protected cruisers. It may well have been that the armoured cruiser became the treaty cruiser.

This in turn may have resulted in the treaty battleship being 40 or 45000 tons as originally intended.

The thing is, the RN struggled to afford as many 10000 ton cruisers as they needed, hence their multiple attempts to reduce size and cost and driving the 8000 ton 6" cruiser in later treaties. Japan and the US, despite initially not having any tonnage (number) limits on cruisers, still didn't build huge numbers of them. Chances are that even if the limit was 20 or 25000 tons and 9.2" guns, the major powers wouldn't build very many of them.

As it was, besides Australia and Spain, only major powers had 8" cruisers. If the 9.2" was the treaty limit, there may have been fewer built than there were 8", with an earlier interest in smaller 6" armed ships.

On Australia not being separate from the RAN, a level of separation would have been advantageous, and better set up the RAN going forward. There was no reason it couldn't have been part of the Washington Treaty in the same way ending the UK-Japan alliance was. A forced separation could have led to advances in other areas of the RAN, such as an earlier fleet air arm and greater determination to develop a submarine service.
 
Volkodav said:
True but there was apparently no obligation for Australia to offer up HMAS Australia.

Also, the existence of modern armoured cruisers may have changed what a treaty cruiser was. The real world limit was basically a rounded-up Frobisher, which in turn, was the final evolution of the Town Class protected cruisers. It may well have been that the armoured cruiser became the treaty cruiser.

This in turn may have resulted in the treaty battleship being 40 or 45000 tons as originally intended.

The thing is, the RN struggled to afford as many 10000 ton cruisers as they needed, hence their multiple attempts to reduce size and cost and driving the 8000 ton 6" cruiser in later treaties. Japan and the US, despite initially not having any tonnage (number) limits on cruisers, still didn't build huge numbers of them. Chances are that even if the limit was 20 or 25000 tons and 9.2" guns, the major powers wouldn't build very many of them.

As it was, besides Australia and Spain, only major powers had 8" cruisers. If the 9.2" was the treaty limit, there may have been fewer built than there were 8", with an earlier interest in smaller 6" armed ships.

On Australia not being separate from the RAN, a level of separation would have been advantageous, and better set up the RAN going forward. There was no reason it couldn't have been part of the Washington Treaty in the same way ending the UK-Japan alliance was. A forced separation could have led to advances in other areas of the RAN, such as an earlier fleet air arm and greater determination to develop a submarine service.
Click to expand...
I like the point of view!
 
Volkodav said:
The thing is, the RN struggled to afford as many 10000 ton cruisers as they needed, hence their multiple attempts to reduce size and cost and driving the 8000 ton 6" cruiser in later treaties. Japan and the US, despite initially not having any tonnage (number) limits on cruisers, still didn't build huge numbers of them. Chances are that even if the limit was 20 or 25000 tons and 9.2" guns, the major powers wouldn't build very many of them.
Click to expand...
For the US, cruisers of the sort that emerged from the WNT were really an unknown quantity. Up to that point, the USN had built either smaller cruisers for the scouting fleet or big armored ones that were almost mini battleships. For most of the early classes they built, these were very much an experiment in a new type of construction. This can best be seen by the Salt Lake City class where the two built came out nearly 2,000 tons underweight and top heavy.

The Japanese were in the same boat (pun fully intended). Their new, large cruisers were something they hadn't tried to build before. With less naval engineering capacity, to get something that matched the US designs they ended up at nearly 15,000 tons and even then their early designs were had some serious issues.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom