Washington/London Naval Treaties

[AnotherDilbert]

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

You lack the thousands of technical details and compromises that thousands of engineers optimise for years in a real technical system as complex as a current warship.

But we play a game, we want to be able to design a ship in less than a single man-hour, not the realistic millions of man-hours for any complex technical system consisting of lots of component systems.

 

[Quint]

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

I used the MGTHG1's bog ship system to create rules for large(r) ships in a small-ship universe - basically treating each ship section separate ship needing a jump drive, power plant and maneuver drive to provide but still creating a cap of around 60Kdtons. So, I could have huge, slow supertankers and "space control ships" but for smaller, leaner, faster ships things were still limited in size.

Personally, IMTU I tend to build ship classes around Jump and Maneuver limitations as dictated by TL and tactical/strategic doctrine. But I'm also using a small ship, CT-inspired set of limitations for what can be built when...

When you're using HG much of everything seems to get thrown of the window.

D.

 

[Selandia]

Treaty are written by lawyers that need to create (and therefore name) categories to affix characteristic to said categories.

BTW W&L tonnage are "dry" tonnage as "imperial" fleets that need to operate across the world would be disadvantaged if fuel and boiler water had to be counted. In traveller term it would be tonnage exclusive of jump fuel.

Outside of treaties that require normalised categories and related vocabulary, the function rather than the tonnage usualy fixes name, although job related design parameters tend to fix a tonnage/price tag for a category.

"very light cruiser" (or were they "overgrown destroyers" ?) were named Scout in the RN 1905 (because fleet scouting was their job and required more sea worthiness and range than TBDestroyer with more speed than old protected cruiser ), Scout or Navigatore in RM c.1920 (not only for their name but because of range and fleet duties) Under W&L treaties, their tonnage (and not their name) dictated if they were to be counted against the "cruiser" quota.

Same for "Destroyers", the " " are used because any of four characteristic got a "light" ship ("Destroyer looking" or not) classified against that quota: Speed greater than 21 knt, presence of torpedoes, gun(s) of more than 6", more than 4 guns of more than 4 inches. This provided for a potentially unlimited supply of Sloop (RN usage for light patrol, escort, minesweeper ) across the Empires.

also MN "Aviso Coloniaux" (oversize high sea gunboat with seaplane, landing troops and mines rail, designed to carfully fulfill a mission while making sure to fall outside of limited categories) as well as new construction and WWI cruiser rebuilt as "Colonial ship" by RM.

Note that "Battleships" is an English term and that a generic "Capital ship" designation is used in W&L before translation in the "Naval culture" of the various signatory where naming might be a matter of function given tradition: Panzershiff (although Germany is not a signatory)and Cuirassé refer to armor while Battleship and Nave de Battaglia refer to the line of battle. Destroyer (itself a contraction of Torpedo Boat Destroyer) is not translated into French as "Destructeur" but as Contre-Torpilleur while the KM kept using Torpedoboot to refer to their offensive function, until larger ones ended up with Zerstorer micmiking the RN usage.

WS said it "What's in a name..."

have fun

Selandia

 

[epicenter00]

Apologies for the pedantics but:

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.

Light cruisers were not more powerful than heavy cruisers.

The difference between 6-inch guns (~155mm) and 8-inch (~203mm) guns is pretty decisive, in favor of the 8-inch shells. The superior amount of explosive filler, the weight of the shell, the effective range, it's all in favor of 8-inch shells.

In theory, 6-inch guns were better because their range was about the same and their characteristics seemed about the same, but they had a superior rate of fire. In reality, making this "work" for you was pretty tricky.

For gun enthusiasts, it actually reminds me of the discussion when the US decided to adopt the SS109 5.56 x 45mm (~.223 Remington) round to replace the M193 5.56mm round. At the time, it was touted as having the same range as the 7.62 x 51mm (~.308 Winchester). Subsequent experienced showed that, no, the SS109 was not replacement for the 7.62 in actual use (as can be seen by the re-adoption of 7.62mm rifles by specialist infantry in more recent conflicts).

It's a similar thing with 155mm vs. 203mm. The debate raged during peacetime quite a bit, within the USN and the RN, the USN continued to build a lot of 8-inch gun cruisers as well as some 6-inch gun cruisers while the RN embraced the "6-inch spam" theory. One of the more interesting illustrations of the superiority of caliber over fire rate is 1939 Battle of the River Plate. The RN had 6-inch and some 8-inch guns, the Germans had 11-inch and 5.9-inch guns. It's often difficult to cut through the fat of Anglophilia in English sources, but once you do, despite the glowing or dramatic language authors use to describe the terrific amounts of 6-inch gunfire ... the telling shots on the British ships and the German Graf Spee came from RN 8-inch guns and the German 11-inch guns. By "6-inch gun spam" theory, the RN should have sent the Graf Spee to the bottom pretty quickly - they had more ships, greater weight of fire, and their ships were faster, but it's often theorized that had the Graf Spee stuck around, she probably could have dispatched the RN vessels - not bad for a single heavy cruiser vs. multiple 6-inch spammers.

 

[pendragonman]

BTW W&L tonnage are "dry" tonnage as "imperial" fleets that need to operate across the world would be disadvantaged if fuel and boiler water had to be counted. In traveller term it would be tonnage exclusive of jump fuel.

Selandia

Another issue is the W/L Naval Treaty tonnes were WEIGHT not VOLUME, and Traveller tonnes are VOLUMES.

Aramis at one time had a multiplier range to help figure out the weight of a starship based on its mission. IIRC, warships were ~12-15 times the volume for the weight due to the armor and otherwise density of equipment in a warship.

So something at 35,000 tonnes in the W/L treaty is more like 2500-3000 Traveller dtons.

If this was noticed earlier in the thread and I missed it, I am sorry.

 

[aramis]

Another issue is the W/L Naval Treaty tonnes were WEIGHT not VOLUME, and Traveller tonnes are VOLUMES.

Aramis at one time had a multiplier range to help figure out the weight of a starship based on its mission. IIRC, warships were ~12-15 times the volume for the weight due to the armor and otherwise density of equipment in a warship.

So something at 35,000 tonnes in the W/L treaty is more like 2500-3000 Traveller dtons.

If this was noticed earlier in the thread and I missed it, I am sorry.

Said range was done by simply taking the tonnages of published ships in TNE and dividing...

 

[Condottiere]

Arms control treaties are about balancing military power by limiting capabilities.

For that, you need to be able to define them.

If it weren't for spinal mounts, we'd probably have a similar situation till the Ironclad Age, where arming merchant ships could put them on a somewhat similar footing as smaller dedicated warships.

 

[Enoki]

Then, to throw a monkey wrench in this whole thing, how do alien minds see their ships? At the extreme, you have the K'kree and Hivers. Do Aslan and Vargr see their ships the way humans do?
Even different factions of humanity are going to have widely varying ideas about what their ships are supposed to do and that might be based on tonnage, weapons, the engineering plant, jump capacity, or other features.

For example, the term "destroyer" can have a number of different types of ship involved in historical terms...

You could have not only a destroyer but...

Guided missile destroyer
ASW destroyer
Minelayer destroyer
Destroyer leader
Large destroyer
Escort destroyer
Scout destroyer

And, that's hardly the entire list of variations you could end up with.

 

[Whipsnade]

You could have not only a destroyer but...

That's why I always design with a mission (or missions) in mind rather than any kind of label.

Labels and abilities change with language, time, technology, and tactical theory, but what a given design is meant to do always falls into a few broad categories.

One category involves meeting and defeating the best an enemy can deploy. SOLs, capital ships, carriers, SSNs, quinqueremes, and others are all in this "arm of decision" category.

One more category involves independent and/or long endurance operations. Another category involves scouting and communications. A further category involves patrolling. Still another category involves assisting larger and/or more costly assets with their mission.

Roughly speaking - very roughly speaking - a polity determines what it needs to do, it takes stock of what technologies and monies are available to it, and it then makes design choices based on it's perceived needs and known capabilities. There are a slew of other factors too, things like politics, tactical theories, treaties, and the like, but it generally comes down to your needs and capabilities determining your designs.

 

[whartung]

You lack the thousands of technical details and compromises that thousands of engineers optimise for years in a real technical system as complex as a current warship.

But we play a game, we want to be able to design a ship in less than a single man-hour, not the realistic millions of man-hours for any complex technical system consisting of lots of component systems.

The difference between an M-16 and an AK-47 is not simply one of caliber and the mechanics of gas operation.

The difference between an M1A and T-80 is not simply armor composition and gun caliber.

The differences between the Bismarck, Iowa class battleship, and the Yamato is not just the number of guns or thickness of armor.

There were technical compromises and priorities in all of those designs, but the theory of operations and deployments behind them were not technical. They were economic, logistical, and philosophical.

Germany had a plan for a surface navy that was quickly scrapped, and then went all in on U-Boats.

In game terms, almost no one would "do this", by simply looking at charts of hull sizes and weapon mounts, because there were external factors outside of simply performance in deciding what was built.

If you want a fleet to be "interesting", you need to look outside of the design systems. Weapon designs are not simply mechanical manifestations, they're instruments of policy.

 

[Whipsnade]

If you want a fleet to be "interesting", you need to look outside of the design systems. Weapon designs are not simply mechanical manifestations, they're instruments of policy.

Quoted for truth.

 

[aramis]

It's the same as with adventures - ship designs need to be "part of a bigger story which is driving the story being told."

GDW put this in practice with the descriptions of the Suleiman, Serpent (even if it originated elsewhere), Gazelle & Fiery, and Kinunir. Each has a backstory that hints at things left unsaid.

And in my EC setting - why the "Flying Phallus" ship designs? Especially since I'm using parallel to travel decks... one standardized hull form, mated in groups, to make the various designs... The Patrol is 1 octagonal tube, the frigate 2, the destroyer 3, and the cruiser 4... All mated up.

(I expect Bill can already guess part of the story behind it...)

 

[Condottiere]

The Confederation Navy has a cruiser gap, since it concentrates on building capital ships.

In Mongoose Second, I took that to mean they haven't built hulls between fifteen and hundred thousand tonnes since the War of Imperium Aggression. And likely no hulls bigger than five kay tonnes for the lower end.

It's likely that they'll fill out the middle with Hilfskreuzers and Confederalized Home Guard units, during an actual long term war.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The differences between the Bismarck, Iowa class battleship, and the Yamato is not just the number of guns or thickness of armor.

Certainly, but neither is it only doctrine.

The difference between a battleship and a dreadnought was not just doctrine, but technological breakthrough.

The difference in effectiveness between a well-designed ship type and a badly designed ship type with the same technology and doctrine can be vast. Small example: Type 45 propulsion.

The difference in manufacturing standards can also be decisive, e.g. HMS Glatton.

No technological military can perform well without good doctrine, good training, and good engineering munchkinising.

 

[Condottiere]

Militaries can go through periods of revolution, innovation, and transformation.

Recent examples have decidedly mixed results; sometimes it's access to improved technology, and sometimes it's trying out a different warfighting doctrine.

Dreadnought worked out because the correct environment, technology and leaders came together at the right time.

Trying to develop the technology to fit a new doctrine never works out too well.

 

[Selandia]

Then, to throw a monkey wrench in this whole thing, how do alien minds see their ships? .

Linguistic xenology is a facinating subject.

To make matters more interesting, each and every race may have a different mindset in regard with semiotic issues.

I won't dare toutch it for I never created a race nor played a "deep character" Alien PC.

Even on this planet, different cultures have different approaches within the same sphere of activity using the same Tools, yet end up often (not always) with similar names.

In the example you give, Destroyer was initialy Torpedo Boat Destroyer. Destroyer stuck as a sexy name and all those sub-type naming to get glamour by association. So ASW Destroyer would literally mean "destroyer of anti-submarine weapons" but refer to a ASW ship larger than a Frigate and a) smaller than a Cruiser (about everywhere), or b) not filling the function of a Cruiser (Some USN ships), while the MN will use Contre-Torpilleur until 1951, then Destroyer-Escorteur until 54 then Escorteur d'Escadre, a strictly functionnal definition since.

Nobody dies for a paycheck, so beside size and function, esprit de corp and morale building come to play. Corvette was re-introduced as "Coastal Escort Vessel -Whale Catcher Type-" was not dignified enough and Sloop would be a missnomer given building standard and characteristic (see Kingfisher or Pelican classes). So recalling a glorious tradition, Corvette it was to be. Frigate was re-introduced later as "twin screw Corvette" was not inspiring enough, while larger than Corvette but remaining a cheapo alternative to Escort Sloop. BTW, calling Corvette: Coastal Escort or Patrol Sloop (a costal escort designation) would be bad for the moral of crew you knew would serve high sea as it would convey to them: you get the wrong hardware.

If you mounted torpedo (shade of W&L lawering) you were Destroyer but if to slow/small for Fleet: Destroyer-Escort (functionnal).

As to the Alien mindset: would an Aslan ever go to war on a ship named Begonia, Pink or Pansy within the type Mininal Budget Class? (the corvette were autorized as Costal Escort because HP thought that high sea would be too expensive, designer tricked in range and seaworthiness)

have fun

Selandia

 

[Condottiere]

I might be very worried by anything named the Dogstar.

Vargr might name Scouts Lone wolves.

They could also call their capital ships Alphas.

 

[Garyius2003]

Outside of treaties that require normalised categories and related vocabulary, the function rather than the tonnage usualy fixes name, although job related design parameters tend to fix a tonnage/price tag for a category.
***

WS said it "What's in a name..."

have fun

Selandia

Not just treaties. The US Navy does not have cruisers now because Congress mandated nuclear propulsion for new cruisers. They just have huge destroyers.

There is also the great 1975 class renaming, which was also political but based on Soviet class numbers.

 

[Condottiere]

Cruisers also sound expensive to Congress, with or without nuclear propulsion.

What is a cruiser? Sometimes it's a get out of jail free card.

The British renamed their light carriers Through Deck cruisers, while to pass through the Bosporus, the Russians called theirs aviation cruisers, since by international law, aircraft carriers larger than fifteen thousand tonnes can't transit through there.

 

[flykiller]

would an Aslan ever go to war on a ship named Begonia, Pink or Pansy

as has been pointed out before in some fantasy game article, ship names, especially in scifi entertainment, are calibrated to sound dramatic in english. in alien languages they may sound quite different. an aslan ship named "pisssssss" may sound quite aggressive to them, but may gain a +1 vs imperial ships because the imperials can't help laughing.