• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Washington/London Naval Treaties

TheDS

SOC-13
This is mostly just thinking out loud. I make no promise of coherency or point.

I often have difficulty figuring out how to decide what features to put in a ship, or how to design a fleet, or sometimes even how to design a simpler ship design system. And I see other people here have some of the same concerns, so I thought I'd share some research I just did.


What is a battleship? You might be able to answer that, but, what is a cruiser? A heavy cruiser? A light cruiser? Armored cruiser? Strike cruiser? Battlecruiser? Frontier cruiser? Patrol cruiser?

The problem stems from many sources. There aren't any real definitions of these terms, the definitions change over time as technology or political needs change, and other reasons. What we need, though, is a firm definition of terms, which jibes as much as possible with the public's limited understanding of them.

In the years following WW1, the victorious Great Powers wanted to avoid a disastrous naval build-up, so they created the Washington Treaty and later updated it with the London Treaty. The Treaty (as I will refer to them collectively) had to set limits and some definitions, and adhering to it caused some interesting developments. Additionally, by this time technology had stabilized enough that ship designs were no longer regularly getting obsoleted before they completed construction. The result is that we have something of a definition for battleships and heavy and light cruisers.

A Capital Ship was a ship displacing more than 10,000 long tons. There were restrictions on how much tonnage ships could displace.

Cruisers were defined as being limited to 10,000 tons and their guns limited to 8 inches. Because of design philosophies, cruisers were later divided into light, which had 6 inch guns, and heavy, which had 8 inch guns. Cruisers were designed to be able to sink anything smaller than a battleship, and run from battleships. Light cruisers were actually MORE powerful than heavy cruisers of the day; the 8 inch gun couldn't do much to battleships, but they gained no improvement to performance against cruisers than 6 inch guns, because cruiser armor was only 4 inches at the time. This meant ships with the smaller guns could mount more of them, fire faster, and be even faster.

Battleships were limited to 35,000 tons and guns of no larger than 16 inches.

Armored cruisers were before this era, and were an evolution of protected cruisers, which were from when it was less common to armor ships at all, and were replaced by battlecruisers, which were larger, faster, and so much more heavily armed that they could threaten battleships or run away from them. Essentially, a battlecruiser is a battleship which trades armor for speed - as shown in its original name, battleship-cruiser - this may have been a viable concept at one point, but gunnery accuracy had progressed to the point that the battlecruiser's speed advantage never translated into armor.

The Treaty limited the number and size of Capital Ships each country could build, as well as the most powerful armament. It also limited the size of cruisers and their armament, as well as defining the difference between a light and heavy cruiser's armament.

This is not to say that the Treaty was strictly adhered to by its signatories, but the Treaty did accomplish its purpose of preventing a massive naval arms race for 10 years. Which is all beside the point.


With this long-winded way of coming about some definitions, we know how big a Capital Ship (battleship and battlecruiser) should be and a rough idea of what defines them. Same for large ships (light and heavy cruisers).

How about smaller ships, like destroyers and frigates and corvettes (oh my)?

In the WW1 era, torpedoes were the most dangerous weapon, except for their very short range. Torpedo boats were small craft designed to rapidly approach and fire them at the Capital Ships. Their speed enabled them to avoid most of the fire from their targets. To combat them, destroyers were created; these were big enough to accompany the Capital Ships across the ocean, but small enough to mount lots of small, fast-firing weapons for taking the torpedo boats out. Later they took over the job of torpedo boat, and later still served as anti-sub escorts and hunters. Destroyers needed to be only big enough to do their job and no bigger, saving on their cost so more of them could be made. The typical destroyer displaced about 1000 tons, but some countries built much larger, 2000, even 3000 in one case, without providing substantial improved armament. Modern and nearly modern destroyers have a substantially different mission and are much larger, approaching the size of a cruiser. In fact, the AEGIS destroyer and AEGIS cruiser are built on the same hull! (The displacement of a cruiser doesn't seem to have changed much in all these decades.) In further fact, destroyers have largely taken on the role of cruisers.

Frigates of old and modern frigates have little in common. As destroyers evolved into cruisers after WW2, frigates were created to take up the destroyer's old role of escort and screen, and consequently its size. Some even used the type code of DLG rather than FFG. The OHP class of frigate displaces 4000 tons, the size of an extra large WW1 destroyer. And corvettes typically weigh in around 1000-2000 tons.
 
So let's put this together for you.

Corvette: 1000 tons
Frigate: 3000 tons
Destroyer: 10,000 tons
Cruiser: 10,000 tons
Battleship: 35,000 tons

Keep in mind these are either averages or specifications for the Treaty. The average cruiser was closer to 12,000 tons, with some approaching 20,000.

However, battleships (and battlecruisers) grew much more. The Iowa class, after its refits in the 1980's, displaced nearly 60,000 tons fully loaded.

Seeing as how there's roughly a 3:1 ratio in displacements between ship classes, it would not be unreasonable to think that this should be the overall standard, that cruisers should be 30,000 tons and battleships 100,000 tons, for a navy unmired by a political morass.

In the design system for FFS (TNE), they recommend that you choose enough armor to withstand a hit from your own gun. In the last 100 years, though, this has only ever been done for battleships; everything else has been lightly armored. Modern warships rely entirely on their defense systems and compartmentalization to prevent or limit damage, and this is mostly due to the power of the weapons they expect to be facing being powerful enough that armor wouldn't help, so may as well save the weight and make the ship faster. CIWS is armor, if I might bastardize a famous saying.

What does this say about missions?

Well, the thing is, it all depends on your combat model, and your combat model depends on technology. It's not at all unrealistic to want ships to be able to destroy other ships with one shot. It's also not unrealistic to make ships durable enough to require massing of fire to defeat. Most people want their ships to be somewhere in the middle of those; you want ship battles to last 10-20 rounds, which gives you plenty of time for tactical maneuvering. You also want to limit weapon range so that you can create local areas of superiority, and so high speed ships have value in flitting from battle to battle.

With this kind of thing in mind, some guesses can be made.

Frex, battleships obviously are the most powerful ships. Their purpose is not just to destroy all other ships, but to penetrate planetary defenses, a job which cruisers can't do. For that, they need to mount a powerful weapon and strong armor. They forgo nice things like high speed, high rates of fire, and anti-ship defenses, depending on other ships in the fleet to provide these. They are essentially sitting ducks if caught without an escort, but they can support their escort.

Cruisers are likewise designed to destroy all ships, except battleships, from which they run away and call in their own battleships - unless they can gang up on it and get inside its targeting range and then pick it to pieces with cumulative damage, all while worried about getting crippled in one shot. Cruisers generally will be all generic, making the loss of any single one non-critical.

If there is an equivalent to the torpedo, they will be mounted on corvettes (aka SDBs) and frigates (the smallest fleet element). My money is on projectile weapons, such as guns, railguns, and plasma/fusion guns. These are likely small enough to also mount on fighters, which would likely be high speed craft capable of making stealth approaches due to their small size, making them not unlike submarines. Corvettes (and fighters and frigates) will likely mount little else than as many torpedoes as possible.

Frigates will have some varied roles. They function well as fleet-mobile torpedo boats, but could also fill the screening role.

Destroyers will have the most variation. Some will be used as heavy screens, especially against enemy frigates, while others will be used to take out enemy cruisers. In the anti-cruiser role, the destroyer will need to specialize in one area of offense so as to make themselves as powerful as a cruiser in that one area, but vulnerable to them in all others. This is another good reason why cruisers are multi-purpose, because you never know whether you're going to face a destroyer with missiles, particle beams, or meson cannon as powerful as your defenses, so you must be able to beat all three, while the destroyer only gets to pick one.

With the above size ratios, you could make heavy or light versions of each type with a half shift in size (eg 10,000 destroyer, 7000 light destroyer, 15,000 heavy destroyer, 20,000 light cruiser, 30,000 cruiser, 50,000 heavy cruiser, etc).

TNE suggests providing enough armor to withstand a shot from your own gun. Real ships (other than battleships) have historically used half this or less, often due to the types of targets they're likely to have. Mounting a lot of armor makes it hard to run away from bigger ships. So an armored version of a craft would mount more armor than is typical, while a ship designed to specialize in one type of weapon at the expense of the others would have a designation for that weapon attached to its type code. Frex, the DDG and FFG make use of guided missiles in the real navy. A DDM might make use of a meson gun and a DDP a particle accelerator. A FFF might specialize in fusion guns?

Ok, so now what about strike craft? Well, that's a mission type. The mission is basically to be able to quickly penetrate enemy lines and make war on their supply and production lines. You need a ship which sacrifices weapons and armor to gain the necessary abilities, which might be a larger jump drive, larger maneuver drive, stealth system (or black globe), and a lot of cargo space for food, parts, and munitions. You probably also want long range weapons like missiles since most of your targets will not be maneuvering.


So there you have my rambling thoughts on this subject. Whether it relates well to any edition of Traveller, I can't say, as most of my space navy experience comes from MoO2.
 
Last edited:
not sure where you're going with this.

What we need, though, is a firm definition of terms

what, in traveller? to get a firm definition of terms you first need to define 1) the ruleset and 2) the intent.
 
The definitions weren't the important outcome of that treaty in any case. What should be taken away from it was all the signatories built ships right to the limit (or lied and went over) of what was allowed. Britain singularly backed away from such a policy more on their navy's needs and budget than because they didn't want to build to the limit of the treaty. I'd expect something similar if such a treaty were arrived at between major powers in Traveller too.

Of course, without it, the US idea of a "heavy" cruiser would have been closer to the Alaska class... Which is definitely a very large cruiser, and not a battlecruiser.

So, trying to apply terms to the ships is once again, kind of difficult.

The same applies to the Cold War. The Soviet Navy often had designations for their ships that varied greatly from what the West was using. They had a whole range of small, medium, and large ASW vessels that the West would have called frigates, destroyers, and cruisers.

Many older "light cruisers" and "cruisers" in Japanese and British service had the gun power of a destroyer by 1940 and their only real difference was they were a bit bigger and had some armor on them.

The British Dido class or US Atlanta class had destroyer armaments on them, only a bit of light armor, and were slightly bigger than destroyers. Yet, they were considered "cruisers."
 
Form follows function.

The only thing vague and fluctuating historical labels and sizes tell is that things change. As technology changes, things will change even more.
 
Treaties attempted to define warship categories in order to be able to control and limit numbers and capabilities, to prevent arms races.

Basically, you look at the canon examples, then compare them with the High Guard design system, then figure out the min-max designs for capabilities you feel are important for each category, but usually revolve around balancing firepower, speed and protection.
 
As technology changes, things will change even more.

not usages. one may envision present naval structures as in fact having no battleships but rather being just variations on the torpedo-boat theme, built bigger for longer and more distant deployments. (in traveller at tech 15, where "fighters" cannot seriously deter larger ships with bigger guns, we see a return to the "battleship" usage.)
 
Cruiser was originally a mission type, not a ship class.
Modern battleships trace their evolution back through the steam powered ironclad frigates of the mid-1800s, they were not developed from the multi-gun decked ships-of the line.
Destroyers began as small torpedo boat destroyers and now rival WW1 battlecruisers for size, or even aircraft carriers in some navies.

The problem with trying to pin down definitions in Traveller are:
terms change over time
the Imperium has been around a long time
TLs rise over time and offer new capabilities and hence labels will shift.

Does the RC use the same designations for its ships as the Sylean Federation did?
 
not usages. one may envision present naval structures as in fact having no battleships but rather being just variations on the torpedo-boat theme, built bigger for longer and more distant deployments. (in traveller at tech 15, where "fighters" cannot seriously deter larger ships with bigger guns, we see a return to the "battleship" usage.)
This is rule set dependent though.
In CT LBB2 a squadron of fighters carrying a nuke each was a real threat even to a TL15 warship.
In HG the fighter became useless vs capitals.
In MgT HG2e the fighter squadron reigns supreme thanks to its dogfighting rules.
 
I did warship evolution in Mongoose First, analogous from the sixteenth through twentieth century; with Mongoose Second removing computerized weight restrictions, it doesn't fit anymore.

At some point you reach a point of diminishing returns, and generally speaking hubris and politics might push a ship design and class just beyond that.

And then you have the Deathstar.
 
This is rule set dependent though.
In CT LBB2 a squadron of fighters carrying a nuke each was a real threat even to a TL15 warship.
In HG the fighter became useless vs capitals.
In MgT HG2e the fighter squadron reigns supreme thanks to its dogfighting rules.
Slight disagreement about MgT.

In MgT 1e HG Fighters reigned supreme.
In MgT 2e HG Fighters are one of several viable threats to capital ships in skirmishes, but not really in fleet scale actions (it has one single design system, but two combat systems: Ship scale and fleet scale).

IMHO MgT 2e HG, while far from perfect, is the only other system than original HG that is actually usable...
 
CT HG2e gives us alternative breakpoints for ship classes based on hull size to hit DMs.

Now while in universe naval architects may be unaware of the to hit charts etc :) after battle statistical analysis will allow them to deduce a 1900t ship doesn't get hit as often as a 2500t ship.

So
1999t or less frigates
2000t to 19,999 destroyer
20,000t to 74,999 cruiser
75,000t+ battleship
 
Mongoose Second introduces hull point multipliers at twenty five and hundred kay tonnes, so light cruisers are likely a minimum twenty five kay, while capital ships likely start off at a hundred.

Two kay tonnes is another likely junction, though I'm trying to work out for what, as is five and ten, and probably one. Another category should two hundred tonnes, the maximum for a ten tonne bridge, and probably the most viable size for a small starship.
 
Mongoose Second introduces hull point multipliers at twenty five and hundred kay tonnes, so light cruisers are likely a minimum twenty five kay, while capital ships likely start off at a hundred.

Two kay tonnes is another likely junction, though I'm trying to work out for what, as is five and ten, and probably one. Another category should two hundred tonnes, the maximum for a ten tonne bridge, and probably the most viable size for a small starship.

MGT 1E gives us some interesting breakpoints as well... 2000 Td is the largest "single-hull" under 1E. Everything bigger is built by multiple 1000 Td compartments. I think. I never did make a real effort to cope with MGTHG 1E's big ship system
 
2000 Td is the largest "single-hull" under 1E. Everything bigger is built by multiple 1000 Td compartments. I think. I never did make a real effort to cope with MGTHG 1E's big ship system
Not separate hulls, merely separate compartments for damage-allocation. At most very large ships have six sections.
 
I often have difficulty figuring out how to decide what features to put in a ship, or how to design a fleet, or sometimes even how to design a simpler ship design system.

You struggle, along with everyone else, because your view of the problem (defensive and/or offensive deep space naval operations) is incomplete.

You lack the politics and national ethos to drive overall policy.

You lack the economy to pay for and maintain the fleet.

You lack the details of the qualities of the populations to staff the fleet, as well as the conscription/enlistment/training procedures and timelines.

You lack an opponents politics, national ethos, and economy to design against and develop a doctrine towards.

You lack the details of your infrastructure to actually bring your designs to fruition in terms of raw materials and shipyard capacity and capability. You have no way to plan for ways to improve your designs.

You lack the current extent of your existing fleet to assess what gaps to fill or areas to improve upon.

You lack the operational details of your fleets, maneuver, and command and control infrastructure.

Finally, you lack combat experience. Even with all of the above, none of the ideas have been tested.

All you have, is a chart that says a box this big, with a machine this large, costs this much and will go so fast. And if you point this weapon at it, it'll punch holes in it X% of the time.

Ship design is not done in a vacuum, but that's really all we have.

The only constraints we have are the limits portrayed in the rule book, and thus you end up with "munchkin" ship designs, when in truth the ship design may well be secondary compared to the fact that it showed up at the right place, at the right time when your adversary didn't.

The only game system that actually addresses all of those issues, is Starfire -- and it's rulebook is 430 pages.
 
Back
Top