Crimson Seas, Part 2
By Milan Becvar
November 2009

United States construction was from the onset designed with offensive action in mind. The role of the aggressor on the Great Lakes would be primarily to conduct bombardments and provide invasion transport escorts and this would be done in circumstances of superior numbers. The ships did not have to be very fast and a marginal speed advantage over the average transport would be sufficient to provide effective an escort or to intercept any enemy convoys. Excess speed would require more machinery driving up cost and size as well as reducing space available or protection or firepower. With U.S. ports well-fortified, if Canadian Lake Battleships were faster and chose to run so much the better, as they would eventually either have to fight or be sunk at their moorings. While correct for the most part the slow speed of the U.S. Inland Battleships would be a factor in being unable to force decisive engagements and perpetuate a Canadian Lake Fleet presence for a longer period. Beyond a negative impact on public opinion, this also eroded foreign confidence in a quick United States conquest. The Canadian Navy building the extremely fast, big-gunned but lightly armored Alberta Class Lake Battleships was a gamble to exploit this situation.

As previously mentioned, the need for economy in manpower and cost along with the necessity of a ship either being able to fight or run polarized Great Lakes naval fleets into two basic types: Inland/Lake Battleships and escorting destroyers. There seemed to be no incentive to invest in large hulls of the cruiser type. A ship without adequate armament to harm a Lake Battleship and protection to stand up to one could not protect or attack transports escorted by Lake Battleships as speed would not be a factor. However the majority of the costs for the Lake Fleet were being made by a cost sharing arrangement with Great Britain and there was a significant influence by the Royal Navy on Canadian building programs. The same arguments made for the battle cruiser were applied to building fast, more lightly armored lake units that carried the same armament as their more heavily armored cousins. Such ships would always be a threat to unescorted shipping, able to perform morale-damaging hit and run raids or bombardments and not be caught by U.S. battle units. They could also serve as a hunter of U.S. destroyers or light cruisers and prevent raiding posses of U.S. destroyers roaming freely as they could be hunted down by fast Empire light units backed by the Albertas.

Big Guns

The Lake Battleship design equation of a mixed primary and secondary armament continued up to and slightly past the building of the revolutionary all-big-gun Dreadnought and the decline of the mixed-gun battleships. As the numbers of Lake Battle Units increased and the U.S. and Canadian fleets grew on each lake, the long range gun action of opposing Lake Battleships gradually became the more significant threat than fast light units or groups of armed freighters. Increasing the number of primary guns caused a rise in displacement as well as occupied valuable hull space. Inland Battleships did not have sufficient beam due to a need to fit into canal lock chambers to allow secondary turrets or hull gun mount positions in portions of the hull containing primary gun turrets or engine machinery. Adding more primary gun turrets required a reduction in the calibre of secondary guns as well as elimination of secondary turrets to allow hull mountings using the saved space. The retention of a relatively heavier secondary armament by later “dreadnought” type Canadian Lake Units was a reflection of the U.S. material superiority in light units. Canadian Lake Battleships could expect to face larger numbers of U.S. destroyers and light cruisers and kept the 6-inch-gun to stay within the intermediate range envelope.

Size Matters

There are two points in the Great Lakes basin where canals are required to move between the three distinct lake bodies. The need for canals existed between the largest and most northern Lake Superior and the two large central lakes of Huron and Michigan that also connected into the lower Lake Erie by an open waterway. Lake Erie in turn was higher than Lake Ontario the last lake before the St. Lawrence River, which emptied into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. At the time of the conflict the both the Canadians and the United States had canals which allowed movement between all the lakes but no trust or co-operation existed to allow work on any ambitious plans for a connection to the sea.

As a result of the canals the upper theoretical limits on Lake Battleship size was the maximum length and beam that was able to fit within the chambers of the canal locks allowing the ships to be raised or dropped to their different lake levels. Having ships able to move between all the lake bodies was essential to make maximum use of each unit of the lake fleet. Depending on the circumstances a ship would be able to re-deploy to another lake for various strategic purposes ranging from covering losses in one area to trying to gain numerical superiority in another. Both the United States and the Canadian Dominion began also began programs to enlarge canal locks allowing for an eventual increase in ship size but there was no surge in tonnage and battle units remained relatively small. Canal lock size and cost constraints resulted in design economies such as reduction in crew space accommodations, avoiding superimposing turrets also reduced beam and Inland Battleships did not carry large superstructures to retain stability. Lake Battleships slowly grew from the modest 10,000 tons of the first examples and allowed ships to be planned in the 16,000-18,000 ton range (approximately the size of the British Lord Nelsons/Dreadnought/Invincibles) although actually no unit over 14,000 tons was completed by 1920.

U.S. Inland Battleship Design Strategy

The following ships are available to the U.S. player in U.S. Navy Plan Crimson.

Freedom Class (1898): 4 12-inch (2x2), 4 8-inch, 4 5-inch, 2TT, 16kt
Independence, Liberty, Constitution, Justice, Glory, Patriot, Columbia

The first Lake Battleships were small designs well below the maximum dimensions which the early non-improved lock systems were able to accept. Deficient in speed and protection they reflected the earliest attempts to provide efficient Inland Battleship requirements.

Harrison Class (1902): 4 12-inch (2x2), 6 8-inch, 4 5-inch, 2TT, 16.5kt
Macdonough, Pike, Porter, Foote, Monitor, Dahlgren

Slightly enlarged Freedoms, the Harrison class provided a heavier secondary armament but disappointingly continued the U.S. policy on low-powered machinery and little more speed than that of the slow Lake Transport it was expected to escort.

Cushing Class (1907): 4 12-inch (2x2), 8 8-inch, 4 5-inch, 2TT, 19kt
OH Perry, Hull, Preble, Farragut, Ericsson, Decatur

The Cushings were the best pre-dreadnought type Inland Battleships and finally provided enough speed to keep pace with the Canadian Fleet. They were however critiqued for not only retaining but increasing intermediate ranged secondary armament. U.S. Inland Battleships were still seen more as escorts for transports where the limits on secondary penetration was considered a poor trade for not increasing the primary guns.

JP Jones Class (1911): 8 12-inch (3x2, 2x1), 6 5-inch, 2TT, 19kt
DuPont, Lake Erie, Lake Champlain, Elliot, Lawrence, Tripoli

A move to follow the Empire’s Toronto Class units with an all-big-gun design. The ships sported a total of five turrets. The ships moved to the light 5-inch rather than the Empire's larger 6-inch gun for use against light units.

Milwaukee Class (1915): 7 14-inch (3x1, 2x2), 6 5-inch, 2TT, 19kt
Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Toledo, Rochester

Another efficient and evolutionary design, the Milwaukee Class was the largest and most powerful Lake Unit completed by 1920. The unusual arrangement of the 14-inch guns helped balance the ships' weight and they proved more stable in difficult sea conditions than the JP Jones Class.

Empire Lake Battleship Design Strategy

U.S. Navy Plan Crimson also includes the entire battle fleet of the Canadian Dominion.

Windsor Class (1898): 3 12-inch (1x2, 1x1), 6 8-inch, 2 6-inch, 4 3-inch, 2TT, 17kt
Prevost, Bathurst, Bloor, Byng, Blenhiem, York, London

Sharing many of the deficiencies of the U.S. Freedom Class, the Windsors carried a heavy secondary battery that was less protected than would later become the standard of Empire Lake Battleships along with a good 3-inch tertiary battery.

Port Arthur Class (1903): 4 12-inch (2x2), 2 8-inch, 4 6-inch, 6 3-inch, 2TT, 19kt
Port Colborne, Midland, Kingston, Port Stanley

Reducing the number of the slower-firing 8-inch guns the Port Arthur units kept a strong intermediate range capability with the increased 6-inch armament. Reflecting the limited size of the Lake Units the retention of two 8-inch guns allowed the ships to bombard land targets while conserving 12-inch ammunition.

Alberta Class (1906): 4 12-inch (2x2), 2 8-inch, 4 6-inch, 6 3-inch, 4TT ,25.5kt
Athabaska, Thames, Mackenzie, St.Lawrence, Ottawa

Ambitious Lake Battleship expression of the Fisher battle cruiser design, the class named after Canadian rivers triggered a significant war scare as they were as fast as some U.S. light units and capable of all-weather action. Large, lightly-armored and expensive, the experiment was not matched by any completed U.S. Inland Battleship designs but at least the design provided some protection for the exposed 3-inch guns.

Toronto Class (1910): 6 12-inch (2x3), 6 6-inch, 4 4.7-inch, 2TT, 20kt
Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina, Montreal, Queenston, Vancouver

The first all-big-gun “dreadnought” style Lake Battleship class returned to conventional heavy armor protection for Canadian construction. Along with a tertiary armament, the Toronto Class ships' 6-inch guns provided a good intermediate weapon capable of doing intermediate range damage when attacking escorted transports.

Dufferin Class (1914): 6 13.5-inch (2x3), 6 6-inch, 4 4.7-inch, 2TT, 20kt
Lorne, Drummond, Brock, Macdonald, Bagot, Landsdowne, Simcoe

For the Dufferins, the Empire designers rejected designs that attempted to include a third turret as either unstable or too ambitious. A repeat of the excellent Toronto class with a move to the 13.5-inch weapon, Empire Lake Battleships continued to be able to challenge U.S. ships on an equal footing.

Light Units

Lighter vessels which performed scouting and screening duties for the Major Battle units for the majority consisted of Destroyers with a few larger versions which the United States referred to as Light Cruisers (CL) and the Empire as Destroyer Leaders (DLs).

Lorrain class CL: 6 5-inch, 6TT, 24kt
Ithaca, Fort Wayne, Madison, Bay City, Auburn, Port Huron, St Clair

Problems with destroyer operations in severe weather left Lake Battleships without escorts and more importantly scouting and reconnaissance. The Lorrains provided for all-weather capability but did not carry a much heavier armament than U.S. destroyers. As an added benefit the class was able to act as a floatplane base when anchored although none of the craft could be carried onboard.

Henry class DD: 3 4-inch, 6TT, 24kt

A collection of various types built to a U.S. Navy specification by small regional shipyards the collective Henry Class carried a heavier gun armament compared to the Canadian Tritons but a small hull meant room for only six Torpedo tubes on deck.

Alcona class DD: 3 4-inch, 9TT, 27kt

Addressing the need to increase the number of torpedo tubes carried, the U.S. Alcona class destroyers were the best destroyers to operate on the Great Lakes with high speed, heavy armament and nine torpedoes.

Picton class CL: 8 4.7-inch, 2TT, 24kt
Uxbridge

The two Canadian light cruisers were successful but not repeated due to the need to divert a limited budget into Lake Battleships and infrastructure. While the larger units were subsidized by Empire resources, smaller vessels were the responsibility of the Canadian Dominion Navy and funds were better spent on destroyers to keep up with U.S. construction. Similarly to the U.S. Lorrain class CLs, both were able to base floatplanes when anchored but could not carry them.

Nymph class DL: 5 4.7-inch, 6TT, 28kt

Economical answer to the light cruiser, destroyer leaders did not provide the seaworthiness of the larger design but the smaller hull and improved machinery ended driving up cost anyway. Destroyer leaders still could be produced in larger numbers by smaller private shipyards and were more numerous than the U.S. light cruisers.

Triton class DD: 5 3-inch, 6TT, 23.5kt

Standard Canadian destroyer design shared many of the same vices as the U.S. Henry class destroyers such as a limited torpedo armament. Canadian destroyers favored a larger number of 3-inch guns over less heavier-calibre pieces.

Niad class DD: 5 3-inch, 9TT, 27kt

Enlarged Tritons with nine torpedo tubes in three triple mounts, the longer hull also allowed additional machinery space to push the speed up to contemporary U.S. destroyers.

Join the Gold Club and download Great War at Sea: U.S. Navy Plan Crimson RIGHT NOW!