lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,777
Likes: 45,894
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 14, 2020 12:21:02 GMT
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,406
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Jun 14, 2020 13:38:15 GMT
lordroel ,
It would be difficult I think to organise the will and funds for such a project, plus would you need to procure the main guns and possibly the armour from other countries, which might be difficult in the late 30's with everybody realising they needs a lot more of everything. However not impossible.
The problem would be its not a question of matching one of the Kongo's or even all four of them. Its a question of resisting invasion from the entire IJN in event of war. True at the time when the ships are ordered or constructed the Dutch may hope for aid from Britain and France and few would predict the rapid collapse of France or the occupation of the Netherlands. However such aid would be politically awkward once Britain and France seem on a collision course with Nazi Germany. Or simply worried about the military build up in Germany and Italy. Any hope of support from them in SE Asia may be politically difficult as it also means persuading Germany that "no they won't support the allies in Europe" and increases the chance of hostilities with Germany, which is what the country most wishes to avoid.
Support from the US is even less likely given its isolationism and promises only came about in late 41 because the US wanted Dutch support in the embargo against Japan and needed to do so itself because Britain and France were no longer in a position to do so and coupled with German successes in Europe was forcing it into engagement with the rest of the world.
As such I don't think a capital ship programme would be worthwhile for the Netherlands, or seen as such. True using hindsight a bit but some good subs and lighter cruisers to threaten Japanese supply line and land based air are the most effective deterrent against Japan, along with as much ground forces as can be managed in the key areas. Even then and assuming an unoccupied homelands it more a case of putting up resistance and holding out until some unclear assistance comes from one or more other great powers.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,777
Likes: 45,894
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 14, 2020 13:42:51 GMT
lordroel , It would be difficult I think to organise the will and funds for such a project, plus would you need to procure the main guns and possibly the armour from other countries, which might be difficult in the late 30's with everybody realising they needs a lot more of everything. However not impossible. Steve
Well there is also the Dutch 1913 battleship proposal, which are 3,000 tons lighter than the Design 1047 battlecruiser, so had World War I not appear and the Dutch had build 2 ore 6 as they planned then in the early 30s they could have started on their replacements which could be a version of the Design 1047 battlecruiser.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,406
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Jun 14, 2020 14:04:49 GMT
lordroel , It would be difficult I think to organise the will and funds for such a project, plus would you need to procure the main guns and possibly the armour from other countries, which might be difficult in the late 30's with everybody realising they needs a lot more of everything. However not impossible. Steve
Well there is also the Dutch 1913 battleship proposal, which are 3,000 tons lighter than the Design 1047 battlecruiser, so had World War I not appear and the Dutch had build 2 ore 6 as they planned then in the early 30s they could have started on their replacements which could be a version of the Design 1047 battlecruiser.
Possibly if there was the political will for a modified design immediately post war and some agreement hand been made with Britain very likely - as the only nation with spare capacity. If an agreement was signed and noticeable amount of work started before the WNT then there might be a case for them being continued as an exception on the ban of contracting parties producing capital ships for other powers. Mind you with such a programme the Netherlands are probably also included in the conference as a major power and I would suspect with them say building 4-6 BCs Italy, France and especially Japan would want an increase in their own allowances and the former two might even build something. Which could well kill the entire treaty - which as I've said elsewhere might not be a bad thing, at least for Britain.
If 4-8 such ships are constructed, possibly upgraded a bit in the mid-late 30's and escape the fall of the Netherlands then they would make things markedly more difficult for a Japanese invasion even if that force was available and could be supported I think it would only win some time. Could be interesting if say a couple of them had linked up with Force Z as butterflies could see all ships lost or none or anywhere in between. Mind you having say a couple operating from Britain/Gibraltar say under Free Dutch forces could have some dramatic impacts on some other combats possible.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 453
Likes: 567
|
Post by 1bigrich on Jun 14, 2020 14:08:07 GMT
I actually have a copy of the Warship International issue that the first website uses from Lt Noot and Stefano reproduced on his Battleships & Knights pages.
I would say our first, primary ingredient is to have RNN start earlier. By the time the discussions of the battlecruiser come around, things in Europe are pointing to war.
That said, I think the final design was just about perfect for the intended mission. The designers and the navy were showed great foresight wanting 34 knots in northern climes to preserve speed (as I recall, 33 knots) in tropical waters.
I would think a practical points of departure would be either Hitler abrogating the Versailles Treaty (1933), the Anglo-German Naval Agreement (18 June 1935) or the Japanese withdrawal from Second London (15 January 1936). With an earlier start date, the panzarschiffe version (in service 1930) of the German 11in might be considered
as opposed to the version that armed the Scharnhorts (in service 1938, designed 1934)
Alternatively, the RN had 52 of the 13.5in/45 in storage
which is enough to arm several ships plus provide a pool of spares for when the guns need re-lining.
Britain also had the 12in/50 Mark XIV, an all-steel design as opposed to being wire-wound, and an example was built
and a three-gun mount had been designed by Vickers-Armstrong.
The Borfors 12cm was to be based on the 1924 weapon
So I don't think a 12cm twin DP mount is out of the question even with an earlier start date.
As an aside, the Dutch also hoped the French would release the details of Dunquerque (laid down 1932), so another possibility might be construction in the Netherlands of the French design, with some French supplied material, modified for Dutch requirements (say 8 x 33cm in two quad, 14 x 12cm Bofors in twin DP mountings).
My initial thoughts,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,777
Likes: 45,894
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 14, 2020 14:11:41 GMT
Could be interesting if say a couple of them had linked up with Force Z as butterflies could see all ships lost or none or anywhere in between.
And have them sunk as well by Japanese air power. The design of the Design 1047 battlecruiser on AA would be 14 × 40 mm Bofors (7 × 2) and 8 × 20 mm Oerlikon (8 × 10. HMS Prince of Wales had 32 × QF 2 pdr 1.575-inch (40.0 mm) Mk.VIIIs while HMS Repulse had 2 × single 3 in (76 mm) AA guns. Even if the Design 1047 battlecruiser had joined them, i think we would still see them sunk.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 453
Likes: 567
|
Post by 1bigrich on Jun 14, 2020 14:27:10 GMT
And have them sunk as well by Japanese air power. The design of the Design 1047 battlecruiser on AA would be 14 × 40 mm Bofors (7 × 2) and 8 × 20 mm Oerlikon (8 × 10. HMS Prince of Wales had 32 × QF 2 pdr 1.575-inch (40.0 mm) Mk.VIIIs while HMS Repulse had 2 × single 3 in (76 mm) AA guns. Even if the Design 1047 battlecruiser had joined them, i think we would still see them sunk.
Remember, Prince of Wales had a myriad of problems operating in the tropical environs of the Indian Ocean and Malaya environs. Her 2pdr/40mm ammunition separated in the belts in the ready-use lockers. Also, three of her four high angle radar sets were out of commission. In addition to the loss of power from the second attack, and the subsequent flooding due to the A-bracket hit, and additional damaged caused by trying to re-start that propeller. it's little wonder she was lost. See this post
over on Stuart Slade's forum. Regards,
--edit to update link to new HPCA forum
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,777
Likes: 45,894
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 14, 2020 14:34:36 GMT
And have them sunk as well by Japanese air power. The design of the Design 1047 battlecruiser on AA would be 14 × 40 mm Bofors (7 × 2) and 8 × 20 mm Oerlikon (8 × 10. HMS Prince of Wales had 32 × QF 2 pdr 1.575-inch (40.0 mm) Mk.VIIIs while HMS Repulse had 2 × single 3 in (76 mm) AA guns. Even if the Design 1047 battlecruiser had joined them, i think we would still see them sunk. Remember, Prince of Wales had a myriad of problems operating in the tropical environs of the Indian Ocean and Malaya environs. Her 2pdr/40mm ammunition separated in the belts in the ready-use lockers. Also, three of her four high angle radar sets were out of commission. In addition to the loss of power from the second attack, and the subsequent flooding due to the A-bracket hit, and additional damaged caused by trying to re-start that propeller. it's little wonder she was lost. See this post over on Stuart Slade's forum. Regards,
So would the Design 1047 battlecruiser suggested AA armaments be better than HMS Prince of Wales ore HMS Repulse.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 453
Likes: 567
|
Post by 1bigrich on Jun 14, 2020 14:51:31 GMT
So would the Design 1047 battlecruiser suggested AA armaments be better than HMS Prince of Wales ore HMS Repulse.
I would think so. The Bofors DP 12cm would have a better rate of fire than the 5.25in. The Bofors 40mm would be new and have new production ammunition. Remember the 2pdr existed because of 2 million rounds of ammunition left over from World War I
No surprise then the ammunition separated in hot, humid conditions, I would think.
Also, Bill Tennant of Repulse handled his ship like a destroyer. He caused the Japanese to miss with between 15 and 24 torpedoes launched at her. It was only when he turned to comb tracks of torpedoes launched at him that a Japanese group heading for Prince of Wales turned and attacked Repulse on her now-exposed side after she was committed for combing the first attack. Even then, she was only hit by one torpedo, but it was enough to cripple her, and leave her to be finished off by a subsequent attack
With the Dutch desire for better subdivision and protection from torpedoes and mines in the 1047s, I would think even if hit in the torpedo protection system (the A-bracket hit is unlikely and can't be protected) I would think they would be less likely to be crippled. In addition, I would add that Henry Leach, son of John Leach, Captain of Prince of Wales, called Repulse's AA armament 'laughable'. Henry Leach was assigned to Mauritius, under refit in Singapore in December 1941. He was later Admiral Sir Henry Leach of Operation Corporate fame.... Regards,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,777
Likes: 45,894
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 14, 2020 15:03:27 GMT
Also, Bill Tennant of Repulse handled his ship like a destroyer.
Well that is a big destroyer then.
|
|