Greek Large Cruiser Design 1939

[ptdockyard]

Able- what scale are all your models? They look great!

Dave

 

[able]

Able- what scale are all your models? They look great!

Dave

1/700

 

[able]

Which is the other quad turreted model?

This one

 

[phsr79]

Hood is correct. He knows I'm a bit of a stickler for detail, so:
I suspect the Dido connection might arise from a [Christmas IIRC] Own Designs competition on Shipbucket, for which I was asked to set a target. I noted that Lillicrap, head of cruiser design, was seconded to produce capital ship designs for discussion at Geneva in 1936, The data available was that in the above table. I thought it a good target, because (a) there were NO DRAWINGS by Lillicrap, but his experience with cruisers would provide hints to stimulate competitors imagination.
There is no other connection between Lillicrap's designs in columns a and b and the other columns cdfgh which are RN studies from 1938 onwards. The basis of the study for Greece in column e is set out in the last two paragraphs, especially the 1936 London Treaty prohibiting 'cruisers' between 8000 and 17500 tons.

Kingpin6100 said "let my clarify: while that's where the data is from, I was wondering where the the table itself was from, as it appears to be from a book"
If you know which book, and if you have read its introduction which explains the rather condensed layout of the tables, you can find where I found the original information. For example, the references at the foot of each column are to the workbooks of Constructors Lillicrap and Johns. The background to the Greek request is from ADM116/4200. The design study for Greece was in Johns workbook, not Lillicrap's. My book was entitled "A Directory of British Cruiser Designs" so it was important to direct readers to where the information came from, and so where to check it or to find more detail (if any).

That all this data is in the same table was simply to allow easy comparison of a set of roughly comparable designs all from the mid to late 1930s.
Other tables were restricted to a single design and its various versions produced before the final design.
My whole book attempted to cram as much information as possible on to as few pages as possible, to keep costs down, with the original intention of 'print on demand'. Keele University was set up to do that, but the University authorities decided at the last minute not to extend that facility outside University departments.
Reading this post made me understand why your book 'a Directory of British cruiser designs' was not available for a long time. It doesn't fit the nature of this forum, but I'd like to politely ask you to purchase your book. In the meantime, I've been wanting to buy your book, but I couldn't find it at all. After seeing your post, I hesitated for a long time, and then I gathered up the courage to write this post. I hope that you will allow me the joy of reading your book, even if it is very cumbersome.
Kingpin6100 also asked "Erm...erm....erm...Did you actually read what you quoted???" a question with which I have some sympathy.
I find Tzoli a bit imaginative with his comments, and a somewhat cavalier with proper reference to others' work. It was well through this post before he mentioned Smurf, and I was a bit surprised that he thought I was not sending him my own work and that the table might be from the American "Warships International"
His first post said
"Greek Large Cruiser proposal from DNC. This warship is based on the Dido but on an enlarged hull."
It wasn't.
What he meant was "I have based my guess at this warship on the Dido"

Enough said, I think.

Reading this post made me understand why your book 'a Directory of British cruiser designs' was not available for a long time.
It doesn't fit the nature of this forum, but I'd like to politely ask you to purchase your book. In the meantime, I've been wanting to buy your book, but I couldn't find it at all. After seeing your post, I hesitated for a long time, and then I gathered up the courage to write this post. I hope that you will allow me the joy of reading your book, even if it is very cumbersome.

 

[KonTim]

Back in 1928, Vice-Admiral Gkinis of the Greek Navy has proposed the acquisition of 3 "pocket battleships" from Greece. Finally Venizelos administration decided to proceed on Admiral Webb's proposal for the building of a "light fleet" mainly composed by destroyers, submersibles and naval aviation.

As for the proposal of "pocket battleships" for the Greek navy is there any other solid reference of data???

 

[David Chessum]

Back in 1928, Vice-Admiral Gkinis of the Greek Navy has proposed the acquisition of 3 "pocket battleships" from Greece. Finally Venizelos administration decided to proceed on Admiral Webb's proposal for the building of a "light fleet" mainly composed by destroyers, submersibles and naval aviation.

As for the proposal of "pocket battleships" for the Greek navy is there any other solid reference of data???

I haven't heard anything of these pocket battleships, but I have a couple of items either side of 1928 that may provide some context.

At the 1924 Rome conference, Greece declared that it was willing to accept a 36,000-ton quota for capital ships in the context of a proposed naval holiday until 1931 on two conditions. First the tonnage of the Turkish navy must be limited to the same figure, and second Greece would reserve the right to acquire or build a cruiser in place of the Salamis if the latter could not be completed. Following the Conference, the Greek Government renewed its proposal for a ten-year ‘naval holiday’ with Turkey along the same lines, with the additional condition that Greece reserved the right to build two further cruisers to replace Lemnos and Kilkis.

In May 1929, with Salamis still in Germany while the protracted legal proceedings dragged on, the Greek government re-investigated the possibility of completing and taking delivery of the ship as a counter-weight to Yavuz. Large sums of money had been spent, but it would have been necessary to spend considerably more to complete her. After protracted discussions, Greece decided not to proceed, but to counter the threat of Yavuz by investing in light naval craft and aircraft which, the Prime Minister claimed in a speech delivered to the Greek legislature on 10 February 1930, would create too great a risk for Turkey to employ Yavuz in offensive operations.

Regards

David

 

[KonTim]

Back in 1928, Vice-Admiral Gkinis of the Greek Navy has proposed the acquisition of 3 "pocket battleships" from Greece. Finally Venizelos administration decided to proceed on Admiral Webb's proposal for the building of a "light fleet" mainly composed by destroyers, submersibles and naval aviation.

As for the proposal of "pocket battleships" for the Greek navy is there any other solid reference of data???

I haven't heard anything of these pocket battleships, but I have a couple of items either side of 1928 that may provide some context.

At the 1924 Rome conference, Greece declared that it was willing to accept a 36,000-ton quota for capital ships in the context of a proposed naval holiday until 1931 on two conditions. First the tonnage of the Turkish navy must be limited to the same figure, and second Greece would reserve the right to acquire or build a cruiser in place of the Salamis if the latter could not be completed. Following the Conference, the Greek Government renewed its proposal for a ten-year ‘naval holiday’ with Turkey along the same lines, with the additional condition that Greece reserved the right to build two further cruisers to replace Lemnos and Kilkis.

In May 1929, with Salamis still in Germany while the protracted legal proceedings dragged on, the Greek government re-investigated the possibility of completing and taking delivery of the ship as a counter-weight to Yavuz. Large sums of money had been spent, but it would have been necessary to spend considerably more to complete her. After protracted discussions, Greece decided not to proceed, but to counter the threat of Yavuz by investing in light naval craft and aircraft which, the Prime Minister claimed in a speech delivered to the Greek legislature on 10 February 1930, would create too great a risk for Turkey to employ Yavuz in offensive operations.

Regards

David

Thanks for the info!!!

Vice Admiral Gkinis has expressed his POV in a debate for the form of the Greek fleet at the late 20s-early-30s. The old dilemma "heavier vs lighter" fleet has been reborn at that time. Financial reduces and priorities in combination with Venizelos narrow view on naval armaments have been driven to the choice of lighter fleet concept.

 

[Lascaris]

Back in 1928, Vice-Admiral Gkinis of the Greek Navy has proposed the acquisition of 3 "pocket battleships" from Greece. Finally Venizelos administration decided to proceed on Admiral Webb's proposal for the building of a "light fleet" mainly composed by destroyers, submersibles and naval aviation.

As for the proposal of "pocket battleships" for the Greek navy is there any other solid reference of data???

I haven't heard anything of these pocket battleships, but I have a couple of items either side of 1928 that may provide some context.

At the 1924 Rome conference, Greece declared that it was willing to accept a 36,000-ton quota for capital ships in the context of a proposed naval holiday until 1931 on two conditions. First the tonnage of the Turkish navy must be limited to the same figure, and second Greece would reserve the right to acquire or build a cruiser in place of the Salamis if the latter could not be completed. Following the Conference, the Greek Government renewed its proposal for a ten-year ‘naval holiday’ with Turkey along the same lines, with the additional condition that Greece reserved the right to build two further cruisers to replace Lemnos and Kilkis.

In May 1929, with Salamis still in Germany while the protracted legal proceedings dragged on, the Greek government re-investigated the possibility of completing and taking delivery of the ship as a counter-weight to Yavuz. Large sums of money had been spent, but it would have been necessary to spend considerably more to complete her. After protracted discussions, Greece decided not to proceed, but to counter the threat of Yavuz by investing in light naval craft and aircraft which, the Prime Minister claimed in a speech delivered to the Greek legislature on 10 February 1930, would create too great a risk for Turkey to employ Yavuz in offensive operations.

Regards

David

Thanks for the info!!!

Vice Admiral Gkinis has expressed his POV in a debate for the form of the Greek fleet at the late 20s-early-30s. The old dilemma "heavier vs lighter" fleet has been reborn at that time. Financial reduces and priorities in combination with Venizelos narrow view on naval armaments have been driven to the choice of lighter fleet concept.

You can check on the Venizelos archives online, it had both the naval staff internal discussions for or against having Salamis as a counter to Yavuz as well as a detailed technical evaluation by D'Eyncourt , the former RN DNO on the planned modernization.

Links for the latter here:

http://www.venizelosarchives.gr/rec.asp?id=20335
http://www.venizelosarchives.gr/rec.asp?id=20325

End result would had been roughly on par to the reconstructed Dorias, arguably superior given its 14in main armament. The cost to complete the ship was estimated to be about 3.25 million pounds with another 250,000 for munitions and 300,000 to construct a floating drydock. This would be financed by assigning Vulcan 3 years of the German war reparations to Greece, plus part of the fourth year for the drydock and munitions.

 

[red_october]

Speaking of the treaties, in case they were still in place (as opposed to being abandoned by virtually everybody at that point) or if these proposals were considered earlier, is there any indication whether the signatories would have been allowed to (or willing to) actually proceed with the construction of such ships for export?

Legally it seems to be fine, but I wonder how much political pressure it's going to generate following the Deutschland shenanigans.

Given that similar cruiser designs seem to be quite popular for export proposals (including the Ansaldo large cruisers), it would be interesting to see the reactions of various powers if they're actually built, without the war that is.

 

[biber550]

I'm sorry to intrude, but I'd like to point out something.
When they talk about the Germans' machinations with the displacement of Panzerschiffes, they do not take into account that when the Versailles restrictions on the displacement of future German ships were written, there was no concept of a standard displacement. 10,000 tons is the empty displacement. And this concept, in contrast to the standard displacement, which represents a fully equipped ship, with a crew, completely ready for departure, only without fuel, is very vague, for example, the American fleet defined it as empty, in fact, as a hull with vehicles and weapons and without all easily removable units, such as radios, fire control devices, lifeboats, etc. Those. at a minimum, the Versailles limit means 11,000 tons of standard displacement, and if stretched too far, then 12,000 tons. Therefore, if we say that the Germans violated the restriction, then at most it was on the last ship.

 

[EwenS]

Speaking of the treaties, in case they were still in place (as opposed to being abandoned by virtually everybody at that point) or if these proposals were considered earlier, is there any indication whether the signatories would have been allowed to (or willing to) actually proceed with the construction of such ships for export?

Legally it seems to be fine, but I wonder how much political pressure it's going to generate following the Deutschland shenanigans.

Given that similar cruiser designs seem to be quite popular for export proposals (including the Ansaldo large cruisers), it would be interesting to see the reactions of various powers if they're actually built, without the war that is.

The 1936 London Treaty signed by the British Empire, USA & France remained in force until the outbreak of WW2. Article II stated:-

"Article II​

After the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, no vessel exceeding the limitations as to displacement or armament prescribed by this Part of the present Treaty shall be acquired by any High Contracting Party or constructed by, for or within the jurisdiction of any High Contracting Party."

​

 

[1635yankee]

I hope, you don't mind me moving your post to this section, but as it is a real proposal
it is more appropriate to this section here. I think.
BTW, with this calibre, wouldn't it have to be regarded as battleship with regards to the
Washington Treaty ?

Within the dictates of the Washington and London treaties, yes. So would the German Panzerschiff, which were built under the rules of the Treaty of Versailles (and probably violated the spirit, if not the letter, of that treaty). The five signatory powers to the Washington Treaty probably had something like 90% of the world's capacity to build capital ships. Who would build this ship for Greece? I can't see Germany being a viable (or reliable) vendor, of the signatory powers, only the US seemed to have enough capacity to build a capital ship for export.

 

[Tzoli]

Either Spain or the UK eoild classify tgem as battlecruisers eg capital ships which then they are well in the limits of the treaty. Under 35.000tons and under 14" gun calibre

 

[biber550]

Either Spain or the UK eoild classify tgem as battlecruisers eg capital ships which then they are well in the limits of the treaty. Under 35.000tons and under 14" gun calibre

It can be stated that they did not violate the spirit or letter of Versailles. They were essentially battleships at the modern level of technology.
And the British and Italians could build for Greece. I don't see any significant obstacles.

 

[biber550]

Speaking of the treaties, in case they were still in place (as opposed to being abandoned by virtually everybody at that point) or if these proposals were considered earlier, is there any indication whether the signatories would have been allowed to (or willing to) actually proceed with the construction of such ships for export?

Legally it seems to be fine, but I wonder how much political pressure it's going to generate following the Deutschland shenanigans.

Given that similar cruiser designs seem to be quite popular for export proposals (including the Ansaldo large cruisers), it would be interesting to see the reactions of various powers if they're actually built, without the war that is.

The countries for which it was supposed to be built were outside the system of treaties and restrictions. I don't see a problem

 

[biber550]

This is precisely why Britain reached agreements with the USSR and Germany to introduce them into the world system of naval arms limitations.

 

[1635yankee]

It can be stated that they did not violate the spirit or letter of Versailles. They were essentially battleships at the modern level of technology.
And the British and Italians could build for Greece. I don't see any significant obstacles.

I'm not sure about either of these countries having the surplus capacity to do so; both were in re-armament mode at this time, and the UK had to import armor plate from Skoda.

The other issue is, of course, that shipyards in Britain and Italy were profit-making businesses. Could Greece afford this ship and its supporting infrastructure?

-----
As I said, I believe didn't violate the letter of Versailles, which in legalistic terms is all that matters. Part of the spirit of Versailles was to preclude Germany from being able to ever again be a significant military actor on the world stage. The Panzerschiff returned the German Navy to a status as a blue-water fleet in a way way that replacing its pre-dreadnought battleships with coast defense ships could not; I would consider this a violation.

 

[biber550]

I'm not sure about either of these countries having the surplus capacity to do so; both were in re-armament mode at this time, and the UK had to import armor plate from Skoda.

The other issue is, of course, that shipyards in Britain and Italy were profit-making businesses. Could Greece afford this ship and its supporting infrastructure?

-----
As I said, I believe didn't violate the letter of Versailles, which in legalistic terms is all that matters. Part of the spirit of Versailles was to preclude Germany from being able to ever again be a significant military actor on the world stage. The Panzerschiff returned the German Navy to a status as a blue-water fleet in a way way that replacing its pre-dreadnought battleships with coast defense ships could not; I would consider this a violation.

As I understand it, it had a slightly different look.
The fact is that already at Versailles the issues of limiting naval weapons were raised. And there was even a discussion about limiting the construction of warships to 8,000 empty tons - yes, this is where the 10,000 tons of standard displacement in the Washington Naval Treaty will come from. So the Versailles restrictions for Germany should be considered from this angle. Well, and most importantly, if they wanted to deprive Germany of the high seas fleet, then restrictions on this would have been prescribed more strictly. But this did not happen. Don't forget that the US maintained a very favorable attitude towards Germany even at Versailles.

 

[RAIDer1_1]

Which is the other quad turreted model?

Here is my new drawing with much more accurate information:

DNC Design for Greece by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The designs had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 205,74m(pp) x 23,16m x 7,31m
Displacement: 18.550tons (Standard)
Engines: 140.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 61km/h (33knots)
Range: Unknown, likely 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 76mm over machinery, 102mm over magazines Deck, 229mm over magazines, 203mm over machinery Belt
Armaments:
3x2 10"/50 (254mm/50) BL Mk VIII Cannons
6x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
6x4 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
4x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2x Floatplanes

Well Sorry to disturb u but I have question
What will be the Overall lenght of this ship?

 

[Tzoli]

Waterline length: 215,5m
Overall length: 217,1m