WesWorld

For the purposes of the thought-experiment I am working on, there is no need to disguise the true function of any of the designs that are projected – the are no treaty limitations to be adhered to, nor is there any need to mislead the legislature – if the tonnage is available, it can be spent. So from this perspective, whether a 19,000 ton aircraft carrier is built or a 19,000 ton aircraft maintenance ship, the constraint of the tonnage required remains the same as well as the building time – 28 months from keel laying to completion plus six months for trials before the vessel is combat-worthy. Such are our rules.

Turning to the Colossus-class carriers of the wartime RN, it is instructive to look at their building times. Ten ships were commissioned between December 1944 and May 1946 – Colossus, Glory, Ocean, Venerable, Vengeance, Pioneer, Warrior, Theseus, Triumph, and Perseus – others were completed later. The lead ship, Colossus, was laid down on 1 June 1942, but not commissioned until 16 December 1944, having been launched on 30 September 1943. That is 486 days from keel-laying to launch and 443 days from launch until commissioning. That is a span of 929 days. The average for all ten vessels is 456 days from keel-laying to launch, and 473 days from launch until commissioning. Oddly enough, the average construction period is 929 days as well. Our rules would permit completion of a 14,000 ton vessel I 23 months (690 days), or 29 months (870 days) if you were to include the trials period in the calculations.

That the Colossus class lacked any armor protection, were built to mercantile standards, were relatively slow (25 knots) and were intended to operate only forty-eight aircraft defined them as wartime expedients that survived solely to the lack of alternative hulls.

They were also easy to modify to incorporate new tech and aircraft.

A further question of philosophy. In time of war there are never enough destroyers to be had, but in time of peace, or in planning the size and composition of a fleet, is there an optimal number of destroyers to construct or otherwise have available in relation to the number of capital ships on hand. Does the number of cruisers enter into the calculation of the number of destroyers or are cruisers treated autonomously? The answer to this question is likely personal but I would appreciate your input.

Thank you in advance.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

A further question of philosophy. In time of war there are never enough destroyers to be had, but in time of peace, or in planning the size and composition of a fleet, is there an optimal number of destroyers to construct or otherwise have available in relation to the number of capital ships on hand.

I think there's a bit of flux depending on what country is answering the question...

For France, I usually say my best ratio is eight destroyers per capital ship, as this gives me one destroyer flotilla to escort every capital ship. To an extent, this is breaking down as more French carriers get commissioned, and some of the slack is taken up by the escortier-rapides.

However, if I'm answering for Britain, I'd say my ratio is 16-20 destroyers per capital ship, because I have a lot more SLOCs and duties for them to cover.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Does the number of cruisers enter into the calculation of the number of destroyers or are cruisers treated autonomously?

I always calculate my cruisers separately. I like to have around two cruisers per capital ship or carrier, but then I always factor in more cruisers to do extra tasks.

Thank you for the prompt response. You are quite correct that the answers would be all over the field; IIRC before the First World War the US Navy calculated four destroyers per battleship - but that is certainly far too low for any navy in the 1930s - but it was the only documented metric I had on file.

While I have seen lots of references to interwar calculations for cruiser numbers for the RN, I've seen less for destroyers, which tend to get lumped into flotilla numbers.
But I guess a 2:1 ratio would be sensible for a peak naval power.

In WW I think I have slightly overcooked numbers but everytime i look at my OOB I go "I need more" like a destroyer kleptomaniac! One of these reasons I started experimenting with the cruiser-destroyer and switching to sloops/frigates.

Quoted from "Hood"

While I have seen lots of references to interwar calculations for cruiser numbers for the RN, I've seen less for destroyers, which tend to get lumped into flotilla numbers.
But I guess a 2:1 ratio would be sensible for a peak naval power.

In WW I think I have slightly overcooked numbers but everytime i look at my OOB I go "I need more" like a destroyer kleptomaniac! One of these reasons I started experimenting with the cruiser-destroyer and switching to sloops/frigates.

"Laurania", in my thought experiment, has somewhat less than half the resources available to Wesworld's Great Britain, so the balance is more difficult to attain. In retrospect, I may have built too many small units and not enough destroyers, though the former are a good defense against the submarine fleet of the 'rival European naval power'.

A further question to assist "Laurania" in refining its naval program – the question of cruisers.

The Lauranian Bureau of Construction and Repair has overseen the development of several adequate cruiser types – the 10,000 tons 8-inch cruiser typified by the OTL American New Orleans/Wichita, the @8,000 ton 6-inch cruiser typified by the OTL French Gloire, and a 5,000 ton light cruiser approximating the OTL British Dido.

The current cruiser force comprises eight vessels of the 8-inch cruiser type –plus two units nearing completion, nine light cruisers of the 8,000 ton type, nine light cruisers of the 5,000 ton type, plus four units completed in the wake of the war of 1914-1918, these being considered elderly but still suitable for duty overseas.

There are two principal questions at this point. Are more cruisers required? And if so, of what sort? The current cruiser force is more than adequate to deal with the chief naval rival in European waters, but would be stretched thin to counter any aggressive moves by the expansionist oriental power. Doctrine still sees a viable threat posed by the raiding warship or the disguised auxiliary cruiser operating in distant waters against trade.

I invite your thoughts.

A quick question of clarification, if I may. Are the Dido-esque cruisers primarily designed as escorts for larger vessels, with some emphasis on AA? Are they supposed to be trade protection cruisers on a budget (like the actual Dido class)? Or are they something else entirely (perhaps a la Agano-class, as a flagship for destroyer and submarine operations)?

My answer depends somewhat on the role envisaged for those ships. My initial feeling is that the 6"-armed cruiser force feels weaker than I'd actually be comfortable with - but on the flip, the heavy cruisers are numerically stronger.

Conditionally, my sense is that the cruiser fleet is "good enough" to get the job done - so if Laurania needs more destroyers, then it might not be untoward to hold off and fill other gaps with the budget. But if destroyers are also "good enough" then I might suggest a few more 6" light cruisers.

The Dido-esque cruisers were pursued in a period where resources were crunched and the smaller design adopted to make good numbers in the short term. The design is considered sufficient to fulfill the AA escort role (it has a DP armament) but trade protection is of equal importance.

Current destroyer numbers are considered 'adequate', with the continued construction of very capable fleet destroyers and adoption of a low end escort destroyer in the current construction year. Of course, more would be welcome if resources permitted. Hence the question of what might be the best choice.

I think I'd go for more 6" cruisers, then. With all other things being equal, I'd always prefer to order a larger ship earlier, since the lead time is more crucial.

The 8,000 ton 6" cruisers are, to me, the ideal design to go with as they can act as trade protection/raider types and still have a qualitive edge.

Thank you for your input and advice. The third trio of the 5,000 ton cruiser, planned for the current construction year, were reprogrammed in favor of a trio of 8,000 ton light cruiser, and the budget was not broken - thinned perhaps, but not broken. There is even something left over for auxiliaries.

Edited to add:

The decision to reprogram construction within the confines of this thought experiment did increase the construction time for the larger cruisers - by 120 days for each vessel. Had war been declared, the decision may well have gone the other way. A cruiser in hand is worth two on the ways.

I ask your indulgence for a further question of philosophy.

In formulating its plans for the forthcoming naval program the Lauranian Admiralty is reconsidering the question of aircraft carriers – a vessel now accepted as important in fleet composition but not yet proven critical. The two large aircraft carriers begun two years previously are nearing completion, which would give the fleet a total of seven vessels, three of which have been completed within the previous eight years. The need for additional flight decks is accepted in preference to additional capital ships, but the question of what would be the best sort of vessel to lay down in the next construction cycle.

For its part the Lauranian Bureau of Construction and Repair has drawn up three alternative designs, each of which have merit.

(1) A small, somewhat slow vessel approximating the size of the OTL American Casablanca class. Of less than 10,000 tons light it is the least expensive option with the shortest construction time. The vessel could operate 36 aircraft according to our rules.

(2) A light fleet carrier approximating the size of the OTL Zuiho class (through built from the keel up). The design is approximately 12,000 tons light, operates at 28 knots, and can operate 36 aircraft (there is also some room for improvement here).

(3) A large fleet carrier approximating the size and capabilities of the OTL Essex class. Of approximately 25,000 tons it has a speed of approximately 34 knots and can operate between 75 and 84 aircraft according to our rules.

Resources constrain the choices for the forthcoming cycle to little more than 25,000 tons for aircraft carriers

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

(3) A large fleet carrier approximating the size and capabilities of the OTL Essex class. Of approximately 25,000 tons it has a speed of approximately 34 knots and can operate between 75 and 84 aircraft according to our rules.

I'd always pick this option over the other two types presented. (Although I'd prefer an Audacious analog to an Essex analog; still, I don't know what the past design history has been.)

If the fleet already has a small carrier from earlier decades, then the limitations of a small design should be recognized. Zuiho, after all, was intended primarily as a dodge of Washington Treaty terms, and even the Japanese didn't want to actually build something like that as their first option.

I agree, if tonnage allows for it and your nation clearly has a lot of experience building CV's option three would be the first choice. I base that on the suggestion that your fleet views CV's as a viable capital ship option and has plenty of CV's on hand already providing plenty of doctrinal and technical experience.

Brock scripsit:

Quoted

I'd always pick this option over the other two types presented. (Although I'd prefer an Audacious analog to an Essex analog; still, I don't know what the past design history has been.)

Unfortunately, my level of understanding of Springsharp fails me at modeling a carrier such as Audacious. Yes, I know that in game Germany has built armored flight deck carriers but in trying to model Audacious I run into several issues and unknowns

1 - Air group size - the original legend for the Audacious called for her to operate 100 aircraft. On her dimensions, this is not possible per our rules. The maximum size of her air group would be 76. I suppose that the dimensions of the resultant vessel could be fiddled to get around this.

2 - Estimating the mass of the armored flight deck. Since Springsharp was not really designed for aircraft carriers we have come to treat armored flight decks as a species of miscellaneous weight. And insofar as I can see, we tend to use arbitrary numbers. Audacious had flight deck dimensions of 820 x 112 feet, or an area of 89,600 square feet. Her legend says that the armor over the hanger was 4 inches thick and outside the hangar 1.5 inches thick. I haven't any idea what the mass of the flight deck armor projected for Audacious would have been.

Some may be wondering why “Laurania” is so very careful with expending its shipbuilding resources. Compared with the Principal European Naval Power (PENP) it has far fewer factories – a result of past historical decisions. Its wide-spread colonial possessions were acquired somewhat on the cheap, and its battle fleet in the period before the War of 1914-1918 was small by European standards. At the start of my thought experiment, it possessed only eighteen factories.

Through investment, this industrial base was increased to twenty-two, at which level it has remained for some years. As 1 IP is worth 10,000 tons of shipbuilding materials, this represents 400,000 tons of ships whose construction was foregone.

Several of Laurania’s colonial ports lacked natural harbor facilities, in which instance I felt that Rule 1.2.2 applied, so a further 9 IP was expended to create modern artificial harbors – primarily for non-military purposes. 8.5 IP were expended on infrastructure – chiefly floating dry docks – in various colonial locations. At home 17.5 IP were expended on shipyard expansion – new yards established, older yards expanded. That represents a further 350,000 tons of ships whose construction was foregone.

Offsetting this was the scrapping of a mass of older and obsolete vessels that dated from the period of the 1914-1918 War or before, which returned a little more than 76,000 tons towards new construction over the timescale of the thought experiment.

Overall it has been an interesting learning experience.

Your thought experiment has got me thinking a little as well, I'm tempted to attempt one of my own for a hypothetical Wesworld Atlantis 2.0 which would likely involve a parallel development of a hypothetical Iberia, as that nation was the chief rival of Atlantis for many decades in Wesworld 1.0. It would be interesting to start Atlantean infrastructure at say 1880 and progress pre-dreadnaught building program's up to the dreadnaught age rather than start at the Cleito/Washington treaty stage and base infrastructure on ships in service. I feel it would be more accurate with regards to how many slips and drydocks I would possess rather than set a fleet size and have that determine infrastructure.

Quoted from "thesmilingassassin"

It would be interesting to start Atlantean infrastructure at say 1880 and progress pre-dreadnaught building program's up to the dreadnaught age rather than start at the Cleito/Washington treaty stage and base infrastructure on ships in service.

I've kinda thought the same about an AU French Fleet between 1880 and 1940. A lot of the older designs, particularly from 1900 to 1915, were of such poor quality, largely due to lack of foresight about strategy and tactics, and governmental interference... Would be kinda interested to see how much I could improve the fleet.