1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 20, 2020 22:40:45 GMT
In the Alt-USN 1948 thread, I mentioned to Steve about design capacity and potentially the RN utilizing it for different ships before and in World War 2. This isn't a new idea; something similar has come up before on Warships1/NavWeaps
for just a couple examples.
Some thoughts for an alternate RN heavy unit building program with resources saved/utilized/redireced.
Battleships
Royal Oak is the R-class that has been updated and is in the best condition Royal Sovereign is likely the ship in 'next best' condition, and when Ramilles was torpedoed, she put into Durban for repairs, and was surveyed by a naval constructor named Pengelly, who found her in excellent condition despite being 26 years old at the time. Revenge was probably the worst of the class. So instead of making the KGVs a five-ship class to replace the Rs, make them a 3 ship class to replace Revenge and Resolution and start increasing battleship numbers.
Lay down the the three KGV class on 1 Jan 1937 per Second London. With 52 of the 13.5in guns in storage, utilize 36 to lay them down as 12 x 13.5in ships with 20 x 4.5in secondaries. The new quad turrets should have 40-45 degree elevation for long range gunnery. The remaining 16 13.5in guns get refurbished as spares for the ships when commissioned. Utilize a 1,400 lbs shell for the 13.5in, as Erin carried for her entire life and other RN ships got later in life.
When the caliber escalator is effective on 1 April 1937, immediately start development of the 16in Mk II. Lay down 4 Lions in late 1937-early 1938 0 x 16in and 20 x 4.5in. Lay down an additional pair in late 1938-early 1939. When the tonnage escalator comes about on 31 March 1938, the designs are modified to 40,000 ton ships. With six Lions on the ways, there is no need for Vanguard.
Resources saved: Design staff - no changes to KGV design, no Vanguard' heavy gun development - no 14in developed Resources used: Design staff - 16in BB design to 40,000 tons' heavy dun development - 16in Mk II
Aircraft Carriers
While it is difficult to get the most out of carriers with the FAA only being returned in 1937, Glorious and Courageous have a good aircraft capacity (48) and like Furious (36 aircraft normally), large elevators. Ark Royal is a modern design with a good aircraft capacity. Forget about armored carriers, continue the Ark Royal design for the next four carriers, replacing the armored deck Illustrious, Victorious, Furious and Indomitable. Design Implacable and Indefatigable as 27,500 ton carriers with more aircraft, aviation fuel and range.
Resource saved: Design staff - no armored deck carriers; armor production
Resource used: Design staff - 27,500 ton carrier design
Cruisers
With Edinburgh and Belfast, the Town class reached their zenith. Instead of trying to cram their firepower into 8,000 tons, continue Town class production instead of some Colonies. If anything, make them a little larger once the treaties lapse, say 13,000 to 14,000 tons for better protection and more light AA. We'll call these bigger CLs Swiftsures.
Instead of Didos convert all C-class and D-class to CLAA.
For a smaller 8,000 ton cruiser, go to series production for the Amphion/Perth class in place of Didos and Colonies. If increased AA firepower is desired, remove X-turret from the design for additional heavy or medium AA guns.
Resource saved: Design staff - No Didos, no Colonies' Medium gun production - No 5.25in
Resource used: Design staff - Larger Town class' medium AA gun production - more 4in for AA conversions
Criticism welcome. Also, I'm not sure how to improve destroyers without having several Exchequers meet an untimely demise until they will pay for all destroyers to have high-angle main armament and high-angle fire control. Submarines are difficult to improve as well. I think the T-class is perfect for the Pacific, but they were out of their element in the North Sea and Mediterranean. The Med was dangerous to begin with, but at least the U-Class wasn't a major investment of resources.
Escort carriers, frigates, corvettes, destroyer conversions for escort, monitors, MTBs and MGB could be other categories as well.
Regards,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 21, 2020 8:08:45 GMT
In the Alt-USN 1948 thread, I mentioned to Steve about design capacity and potentially the RN utilizing it for different ships before and in World War 2. This isn't a new idea; something similar has come up before on Warships1/NavWeaps for just a couple examples. Some thoughts for an alternate RN heavy unit building program with resources saved/utilized/redireced. Battleships
Royal Oak is the R-class that has been updated and is in the best condition Royal Sovereign is likely the ship in 'next best' condition, and when Ramilles was torpedoed, she put into Durban for repairs, and was surveyed by a naval constructor named Pengelly, who found her in excellent condition despite being 26 years old at the time. Revenge was probably the worst of the class. So instead of making the KGVs a five-ship class to replace the Rs, make them a 3 ship class to replace Revenge and Resolution and start increasing battleship numbers.
Lay down the the three KGV class on 1 Jan 1937 per Second London. With 52 of the 13.5in guns in storage, utilize 36 to lay them down as 12 x 13.5in ships with 20 x 4.5in secondaries. The new quad turrets should have 40-45 degree elevation for long range gunnery. The remaining 16 13.5in guns get refurbished as spares for the ships when commissioned. Utilize a 1,400 lbs shell for the 13.5in, as Erin carried for her entire life and other RN ships got later in life.
When the caliber escalator is effective on 1 April 1937, immediately start development of the 16in Mk II. Lay down 4 Lions in late 1937-early 1938 0 x 16in and 20 x 4.5in. Lay down an additional pair in late 1938-early 1939. When the tonnage escalator comes about on 31 March 1938, the designs are modified to 40,000 ton ships. With six Lions on the ways, there is no need for Vanguard.
Resources saved: Design staff - no changes to KGV design, no Vanguard' heavy gun development - no 14in developed Resources used: Design staff - 16in BB design to 40,000 tons' heavy dun development - 16in Mk II Aircraft Carriers While it is difficult to get the most out of carriers with the FAA only being returned in 1937, Glorious and Courageous have a good aircraft capacity (48) and like Furious (36 aircraft normally), large elevators. Ark Royal is a modern design with a good aircraft capacity. Forget about armored carriers, continue the Ark Royal design for the next four carriers, replacing the armored deck Illustrious, Victorious, Furious and Indomitable. Design Implacable and Indefatigable as 27,500 ton carriers with more aircraft, aviation fuel and range.
Resource saved: Design staff - no armored deck carriers; armor production
Resource used: Design staff - 27,500 ton carrier design
Cruisers With Edinburgh and Belfast, the Town class reached their zenith. Instead of trying to cram their firepower into 8,000 tons, continue Town class production instead of some Colonies. If anything, make them a little larger once the treaties lapse, say 13,000 to 14,000 tons for better protection and more light AA. We'll call these bigger CLs Swiftsures.
Instead of Didos convert all C-class and D-class to CLAA.
For a smaller 8,000 ton cruiser, go to series production for the Amphion/Perth class in place of Didos and Colonies. If increased AA firepower is desired, remove X-turret from the design for additional heavy or medium AA guns.
Resource saved: Design staff - No Didos, no Colonies' Medium gun production - No 5.25in
Resource used: Design staff - Larger Town class' medium AA gun production - more 4in for AA conversions
Criticism welcome. Also, I'm not sure how to improve destroyers without having several Exchequers meet an untimely demise until they will pay for all destroyers to have high-angle main armament and high-angle fire control. Submarines are difficult to improve as well. I think the T-class is perfect for the Pacific, but they were out of their element in the North Sea and Mediterranean. The Med was dangerous to begin with, but at least the U-Class wasn't a major investment of resources.
Escort carriers, frigates, corvettes, destroyer conversions for escort, monitors, MTBs and MGB could be other categories as well.
Regards,
Question, would scrapping some older battleships be worth while in order to build new once. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 21, 2020 11:54:45 GMT
Question, would scrapping some older battleships be worth while in order to build new once.
Several years ago, David Chessum, Washington Treaty expert and member over on the BC board and Warships1/NavWeaps, asked me to transcribe some documents he had photographed from the National Archive (I think it had not been changed to the PRO then, but I could be mistaken) for the HMS Hood site. Among them was this chart
As it shows, numbers were very important to the RN. For example, Revenge was in bad condition, and as I recall could barely make 18 knots, but she was still a battleship and only a battleship could engage her. So while it might have been easier to scrap her than to keep her going, the RN wanted that advantage in numbers. Even though the KGVs were meant to replace the Rs, the chart shows the first R will not be scrapped until all five KGVs are in service. The second won't go until both Lion and Temeraire are in service.
Also, ADM 1/10141 referenced in Raven's and Roberts' British Battleships (p321, the chapter on Vanguard). states that by 1944 Fleet in Home Waters would consist of 2 Lions, 5 KGVs and the three battlecruisers (for running down the Panzarschiffe). Germany is was thought would have 5 new capital ships by 1944, plus 2 Scharnhorsts, plus the 3 panzarschiffe The Far East would have 2 Lions, 2 Nelsons, 3 Warspites,2 Barhams and 3 Royal Sovereigns.
So I don't think scrapping to build new or even 'vanguarding' would be a possibility the RN would embrace.
My thoughts,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 21, 2020 12:39:11 GMT
Question, would scrapping some older battleships be worth while in order to build new once. Several years ago, David Chessum, Washington Treaty expert and member over on the BC board and Warships1/NavWeaps, asked me to transcribe some documents he had photographed from the National Archive (I think it had not been changed to the PRO then, but I could be mistaken) for the HMS Hood site. Among them was this chart As it shows, numbers were very important to the RN. For example, Revenge was in bad condition, and as I recall could barely make 18 knots, but she was still a battleship and only a battleship could engage her. So while it might have been easier to scrap her than to keep her going, the RN wanted that advantage in numbers. Even though the KGVs were meant to replace the Rs, the chart shows the first R will not be scrapped until all five KGVs are in service. The second won't go until both Lion and Temeraire are in service.
Also, ADM 1/10141 referenced in Raven's and Roberts' British Battleships (p321, the chapter on Vanguard). states that by 1944 Fleet in Home Waters would consist of 2 Lions, 5 KGVs and the three battlecruisers (for running down the Panzarschiffe). Germany is was thought would have 5 new capital ships by 1944, plus 2 Scharnhorsts, plus the 3 panzarschiffe The Far East would have 2 Lions, 2 Nelsons, 3 Warspites,2 Barhams and 3 Royal Sovereigns.
So I don't think scrapping to build new or even 'vanguarding' would be a possibility the RN would embrace.
My thoughts,
Did the RN consider the Kriegsmarine and their building capacity to what they wanted (Plan Z) and what they ended up with in consideration in what they planned operate to counter it. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 21, 2020 13:08:25 GMT
Did the RN consider the Kriegsmarine and their building capacity to what they wanted (Plan Z) and what they ended up with in consideration in what they planned operate to counter it.
The chart shows they did. "German H" for example. What is not taken into consideration is the Italian building program.
Regards,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 21, 2020 13:10:43 GMT
Did the RN consider the Kriegsmarine and their building capacity to what they wanted (Plan Z) and what they ended up with in consideration in what they planned operate to counter it. The chart shows they did. "German H" for example. What is not taken into consideration is the Italian building program.
Regards, looking at it it needs both the Japanese and Germans combined to keep pace with the British. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 21, 2020 13:30:44 GMT
In the Alt-USN 1948 thread, I mentioned to Steve about design capacity and potentially the RN utilizing it for different ships before and in World War 2. This isn't a new idea; something similar has come up before on Warships1/NavWeaps
for just a couple examples.
Some thoughts for an alternate RN heavy unit building program with resources saved/utilized/redireced.
Battleships
Royal Oak is the R-class that has been updated and is in the best condition Royal Sovereign is likely the ship in 'next best' condition, and when Ramilles was torpedoed, she put into Durban for repairs, and was surveyed by a naval constructor named Pengelly, who found her in excellent condition despite being 26 years old at the time. Revenge was probably the worst of the class. So instead of making the KGVs a five-ship class to replace the Rs, make them a 3 ship class to replace Revenge and Resolution and start increasing battleship numbers.
Lay down the the three KGV class on 1 Jan 1937 per Second London. With 52 of the 13.5in guns in storage, utilize 36 to lay them down as 12 x 13.5in ships with 20 x 4.5in secondaries. The new quad turrets should have 40-45 degree elevation for long range gunnery. The remaining 16 13.5in guns get refurbished as spares for the ships when commissioned. Utilize a 1,400 lbs shell for the 13.5in, as Erin carried for her entire life and other RN ships got later in life.
When the caliber escalator is effective on 1 April 1937, immediately start development of the 16in Mk II. Lay down 4 Lions in late 1937-early 1938 0 x 16in and 20 x 4.5in. Lay down an additional pair in late 1938-early 1939. When the tonnage escalator comes about on 31 March 1938, the designs are modified to 40,000 ton ships. With six Lions on the ways, there is no need for Vanguard.
Resources saved: Design staff - no changes to KGV design, no Vanguard' heavy gun development - no 14in developed Resources used: Design staff - 16in BB design to 40,000 tons' heavy dun development - 16in Mk II
Aircraft Carriers
While it is difficult to get the most out of carriers with the FAA only being returned in 1937, Glorious and Courageous have a good aircraft capacity (48) and like Furious (36 aircraft normally), large elevators. Ark Royal is a modern design with a good aircraft capacity. Forget about armored carriers, continue the Ark Royal design for the next four carriers, replacing the armored deck Illustrious, Victorious, Furious and Indomitable. Design Implacable and Indefatigable as 27,500 ton carriers with more aircraft, aviation fuel and range.
Resource saved: Design staff - no armored deck carriers; armor production
Resource used: Design staff - 27,500 ton carrier design
Cruisers
With Edinburgh and Belfast, the Town class reached their zenith. Instead of trying to cram their firepower into 8,000 tons, continue Town class production instead of some Colonies. If anything, make them a little larger once the treaties lapse, say 13,000 to 14,000 tons for better protection and more light AA. We'll call these bigger CLs Swiftsures.
Instead of Didos convert all C-class and D-class to CLAA.
For a smaller 8,000 ton cruiser, go to series production for the Amphion/Perth class in place of Didos and Colonies. If increased AA firepower is desired, remove X-turret from the design for additional heavy or medium AA guns.
Resource saved: Design staff - No Didos, no Colonies' Medium gun production - No 5.25in
Resource used: Design staff - Larger Town class' medium AA gun production - more 4in for AA conversions
Criticism welcome. Also, I'm not sure how to improve destroyers without having several Exchequers meet an untimely demise until they will pay for all destroyers to have high-angle main armament and high-angle fire control. Submarines are difficult to improve as well. I think the T-class is perfect for the Pacific, but they were out of their element in the North Sea and Mediterranean. The Med was dangerous to begin with, but at least the U-Class wasn't a major investment of resources.
Escort carriers, frigates, corvettes, destroyer conversions for escort, monitors, MTBs and MGB could be other categories as well.
Regards,
Some interesting ideas but a few concerns. a) Using the old 13.5" barrels which are wire wound aren't they going to be at least as heavy as the new 14" guns and as such still going to raise concerns about the level of protection? Would it be better if the ships, whether using old 13.5" or new 14" had been designed with three triples from the start. Giving more reliable turrets, only one less gun that OTL and hence not the delay while the OTL double was developed. Also if your redesigning the turret to allow max elevation of 40-45 degrees won't that take some effort and complicate the procedure. [Think your going to do this from the start but its still going to be a more complex design, which will hence take up some effort.
b) You talk about laying down 4 Lions in late 1937-early 1938, which sounds rather like within a single year. I have two concerns with this. That OTL the construction capacity, probably with the usual bottlenecks of armour and turrets/guns Britain could at most process 3 new ships a year and sometimes only 2. Think its normally stated as 3,3,2 sequence or something like that. Also with such a design, while the 35kton displacement limit was in place the RN wasn't happy that a ship could be designed with 9x16" guns and the protection and speed they wanted. Its one reason why Britain pushed for the 14" proposal.
c) I'm not sure about building more Ark Royals instead of the armoured carriers, given the information at the time and where the RN had to fight. They would be very exposed in the North Sea and Med especially and might well not survive some of the hits the armoured carriers did. The latter were designed in part because, especially before radar was practical passive protection, via AA and armour was seen as more reliable than having a CAP. Plus possibly because the a/c available to the FAA were relatively limited in capabilty - depending on what source as to whether you blame the RAF, the RN or the constructors for this, for instance the RN seem to have insisted on a minimum of two people in even fighter a/c which imposed significant performance limitations it was wiser not to rely largely on carrier based a/c for protection. After all the RN was often operating in enclosed waters very close to the homelands of enemy states. As such they could be exposed to large numbers of land based and hence probably higher performance fighters.
I agree that in the longer term a larger more conventional designed carrier was the way to go, at least for operations in fairly deep ocean. However with the information and demands on the RN at the time I think the armoured carriers were probably a better design, for the 1st few. Possibly the latter 2-3 of them instead of having a larger hanger space should have gone to a full unarmoured deck, something like the US designs as by then better a/c, radar and AA would be available but don't think Britain had the resources to change design at that time.
*** Some of my own ideas ***
One of the many TLs I've toyed with has in its earlier stages has an additional character in British politics in the intra-war period. The son of a manufacturer in Sheffield he get an engineering degree, volunteers in 1914 and spend WWI in the artillery. After the war he rejoins the family firm and becomes involved in politics after the general strike. Becoming an MP in ~1930 one of his early activities in in a campaign to retain some of the subsidies to manufacturer's of armour and turrets that had been put in place after the WNT and get a partial restoration which means Britain has a bit more capacity when rearmament begins in earnest. Being a Keynesian and a supporter of rearmament from the start of his career he has clashes with Churchill among others on issues like India, where he supports dominion status and later full independence while he also finds Churchill too erratic so he ends up in a rival camp. His 1st post with his interest in the military is First Lord of the Admiralty in the mid 30's until resigning over Munich.
As a result he is able to rationalise a fair bit of activity and also has a little more to work with. Have the KGVs as a 3 ship class as you but all laid down with triple 14" guns which with the saving on design and also a little less overall weight on artillery so they meet armour and speed needs. As a result they will arrive a bit faster than OTL. [Two butterflies here is that the KGV while still working up is redirected and saved Glorious from the twins and that by the time Bismarch sails DoY is in a similar position to PoW OTL so the RN has an extra modern BB to throw into the hunt.
Also with the KGV being only 3 ships the next design is partially set up by him before the formal relaxing of the limits and the Lions are 9x15" using an improved version of the old 15"/42 caliber gun with barrels modern construction. THis is a 40kton design so has very good protection and speed. Probably only going to get 2 or possibly 4 of them depending on how things go.
I didn't want to make him a Mary Sue so he makes a few error here and elsewhere but the other thing he does is gets a standardisation of the lighter guns, not sure whether say 4.5 or a modernised 4.7" gun would be best, both for DD and for secondaries for the larger ships, with a DP role? [Suspect that the 5.25" would be too large for the former role] Pushing this a bit earlier he gets less of an assortment of guns being used as the RN rebuilds. He does however have concerns about trade protection as he fears a new U boat campaign and hence a bit more work on ASW designs and planning and some early design work on a CVE for the Atlantic.
I wonder how practical you think that would be? Thinking more of different decision making and a little more construction capacity but also would ease some of the design pressures that were suffered initially.
One other question I've been thinking of. Since the new solid cast barrels were stronger and hence lighter than the old wire-wound ones would it be possible to replace the barrels of old ships when they were being modernised and would there be any advantage to this?
Anyway a few ideas I have myself on the issue. Be interested to see what you think.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 21, 2020 13:40:19 GMT
The chart shows they did. "German H" for example. What is not taken into consideration is the Italian building program.
Regards, looking at it it needs both the Japanese and Germans combined to keep pace with the British.
Well their aware by this time they also have to be aware of the Italians who as well as having massively reconstructed older ships are building the new Littorio class ships. Coupled with the decline in Britain's production capacity and that the entire British ships other than the two Nelsons are by now very old its a serious problem. That is one reason why according to some sources the RN cautioned against too strong a line against Italy during the Abyssinian crisis, which might have been an error. There were several ships undergoing major reconstruction and others had commitments around the world so there were doubts over if the Italian fleet could be handled in a crisis or worse if another power started something.
After all the German fleet is, to use a famous term very much a luxury fleet. I.e. it has no great need of major capital ships of the sort it was building while the ability to defend certain sea-lanes and the trade they carried was vital for both Britain and Japan. With Britain having the additional problem that such lanes were scattered pretty much all over the world while those vital for Japan were basically in the Far East.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 21, 2020 14:43:32 GMT
In the Alt-USN 1948 thread, I mentioned to Steve about design capacity and potentially the RN utilizing it for different ships before and in World War 2. This isn't a new idea; something similar has come up before on Warships1/NavWeaps for just a couple examples. Some thoughts for an alternate RN heavy unit building program with resources saved/utilized/redireced. Battleships
Royal Oak is the R-class that has been updated and is in the best condition Royal Sovereign is likely the ship in 'next best' condition, and when Ramilles was torpedoed, she put into Durban for repairs, and was surveyed by a naval constructor named Pengelly, who found her in excellent condition despite being 26 years old at the time. Revenge was probably the worst of the class. So instead of making the KGVs a five-ship class to replace the Rs, make them a 3 ship class to replace Revenge and Resolution and start increasing battleship numbers.
Lay down the the three KGV class on 1 Jan 1937 per Second London. With 52 of the 13.5in guns in storage, utilize 36 to lay them down as 12 x 13.5in ships with 20 x 4.5in secondaries. The new quad turrets should have 40-45 degree elevation for long range gunnery. The remaining 16 13.5in guns get refurbished as spares for the ships when commissioned. Utilize a 1,400 lbs shell for the 13.5in, as Erin carried for her entire life and other RN ships got later in life.
When the caliber escalator is effective on 1 April 1937, immediately start development of the 16in Mk II. Lay down 4 Lions in late 1937-early 1938 0 x 16in and 20 x 4.5in. Lay down an additional pair in late 1938-early 1939. When the tonnage escalator comes about on 31 March 1938, the designs are modified to 40,000 ton ships. With six Lions on the ways, there is no need for Vanguard.
Resources saved: Design staff - no changes to KGV design, no Vanguard' heavy gun development - no 14in developed Resources used: Design staff - 16in BB design to 40,000 tons' heavy dun development - 16in Mk II Aircraft Carriers While it is difficult to get the most out of carriers with the FAA only being returned in 1937, Glorious and Courageous have a good aircraft capacity (48) and like Furious (36 aircraft normally), large elevators. Ark Royal is a modern design with a good aircraft capacity. Forget about armored carriers, continue the Ark Royal design for the next four carriers, replacing the armored deck Illustrious, Victorious, Furious and Indomitable. Design Implacable and Indefatigable as 27,500 ton carriers with more aircraft, aviation fuel and range.
Resource saved: Design staff - no armored deck carriers; armor production
Resource used: Design staff - 27,500 ton carrier design
Cruisers With Edinburgh and Belfast, the Town class reached their zenith. Instead of trying to cram their firepower into 8,000 tons, continue Town class production instead of some Colonies. If anything, make them a little larger once the treaties lapse, say 13,000 to 14,000 tons for better protection and more light AA. We'll call these bigger CLs Swiftsures.
Instead of Didos convert all C-class and D-class to CLAA.
For a smaller 8,000 ton cruiser, go to series production for the Amphion/Perth class in place of Didos and Colonies. If increased AA firepower is desired, remove X-turret from the design for additional heavy or medium AA guns.
Resource saved: Design staff - No Didos, no Colonies' Medium gun production - No 5.25in
Resource used: Design staff - Larger Town class' medium AA gun production - more 4in for AA conversions
Criticism welcome. Also, I'm not sure how to improve destroyers without having several Exchequers meet an untimely demise until they will pay for all destroyers to have high-angle main armament and high-angle fire control. Submarines are difficult to improve as well. I think the T-class is perfect for the Pacific, but they were out of their element in the North Sea and Mediterranean. The Med was dangerous to begin with, but at least the U-Class wasn't a major investment of resources.
Escort carriers, frigates, corvettes, destroyer conversions for escort, monitors, MTBs and MGB could be other categories as well.
Regards,
Would this also fit in this thread. (Royal Navy) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 1936, the RN was the largest navy in the world and was responsible for holding together the vast British Empire. However, the RN was old and was quickly being outclassed by Japan and the US. Japan's navy in particular was considered the greatest threat to the RN, mostly because Japan's battleships and carriers were ahead of their western counterparts in terms of firepower, speed, and reliability, a direct result of Japanese ingenuity that was later copied by the other navies (see Japanese entry). To add to the RN's problems, due to the various naval treaties limiting the number and size of capital ships as well as the global depression, the RN was unable to modernize and had to rely on ships built during and shortly after WW1. The most important of which, when concerning the slow pace of RN modernization, was the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, which forbid construction of battleships for 10 years and limited all signatories to hard limits. The RN was hurt the most by the treaty, as it exceeded the capital ship limits right from the start. All of that changed as a result of the German Deutschland-class Heavy Cruisers launched in the early '30s. The German Panzerschiffe prompted the French, who hadn't yet reached the treaty limitations on battleships, to begin construction of the Dunkerque-class Fast Battleship, which in turn prompted the Italians to begin construction of their Vittorio Veneto-class Battleships, which in turn prompted the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, ultimately cascading into a new global arms race involving the naval powers of the US, UK, USSR, Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, Japan, and Spain. However, because the UK maintained strict treaty adherence even while Japan, its chief rival, withdrew from the treaty in '36, the RN's ships were outdated, outgunned, and ultimately outclassed by Japan's ships, and as a result the RN suffered horribly in the Asian theater. The 1936 RN OOB, commissioned ships only:
3 Courageous-class Carriers 1 Hermes-class Escort Carrier 1 Eagle-class Escort Carrier 1 Argus-class Escort Carrier 2 Nelson-class Battleships 5 Revenge-class Battleships (8 ordered prior to WW1, 2 converted to Renown-class BCs, 1 never finished) 5 Queen Elizabeth-class Super Dreadnoughts (6 ordered prior to WW1, 1 never finished) 1 Admiral-class Battlecruiser (4 ordered prior to WW1, only the HMS Hood completed) 2 Renown-class Battlecruisers (converted Revenge-class BBs) 2 York-class Heavy cruisers (5 planned, 2 completed) 2 Norfolk-class Heavy Cruisers (4 planned, 2 completed) 4 London-class Heavy Cruisers 7 Kent-class Heavy Cruisers 4 Hawkins-class Heavy Cruisers (5 completed, 1 lost in the interwar period) 2 Arethusa-class Light Cruisers (6 ordered, 4 finished) 5 Leander-class Light Cruisers (8 ordered, all finished) 2 Emerald-class Light Cruisers (3 ordered, 2 finished) 8 Danae-class Light Cruisers (12 ordered, 8 finished) 13 C-class Light Cruisers (28 completed, 15 scrapped by '36) 18 E & F-class Destroyers 14 C & D-class Destroyers 20 A & B-class Destroyers 27 V & W-class Destroyers (67 ordered, 27 completed) 8 Scott-class Destroyers (10 ordered, 8 completed) 3 River-class Submarines 12 S-class Submarines (62 completed in total, most of the 50 not in service were lost during storms in the interwar period) 4 Rainbow-class Submarines (6 ordered, 4 completed) 6 Parthian-class Submarines 12 Odin-class Submarines 10 R-class Submarines (12 ordered, 10 completed) 26 H-class Submarines (42 completed, 8 lost pre-war, 6 sold to Chile, 2 transferred to Canada) The 1936 RN OOB, launched ships only:
2 Arethusa-class Light Cruisers (2 more were planned but ultimately canceled) 18 G & H-class Destroyers Additional commissioned ships by the start of the war
1 Ark Royal-class Aircraft Carrier (launched in '37, commissioned in '38, designed to provide protection against enemy aircraft) 10 Town-class Light Cruisers 9 I-class Destroyers 16 Tribal-class Destroyers 8 J-class Destroyers (9 ordered, 1 canceled) 1 K-class Destroyer 3 U-class Submarines 15 T-class Submarines (71 ordered, 18 cancelled) Additional launched ships by the start of the war (aka they were "in the build queue") 3 Illustrious-class Aircraft Carriers (launched in '39) 2 King George V-class Battleships 2 Lion-class Battleships* (4 planned, all cancelled; these ships were never launched, but construction did start on them hence why they're included) 1 Pretoria Castle-class Escort Carrier (repurposed armed merchant ship, purchased by the RN in October '39) 4 Crown Colony-class Light Cruisers 5 Dido-class Light Cruisers 4 I-class Destroyers (these were meant to be sold to Turkey, but 2 were delivered to Turkey and the other 2 acquired by the RN) 7 K-class Destroyers Ships completed by the end of the war:
2 Implacable-class Aircraft Carriers (launched in '42, completed in '44) 3 King George V-class Battleships 1 Unicorn-class Light Carrier (launched in '41, commissioned in '43) 4 Colossus-class Light Carriers (16 planned, 7 re-purposed, 1 cancelled) 2 Colossus-class Maintenance Carriers (repurposed Colossus CVLs, these ships were meant to act as mobile aircraft repair-yards, as RN carriers were too small to fulfill that role) 1 Activity-class Escort Carrier (launched & commissioned in '42) 3 Nairana-class Escort Carriers (launched in '42, 2 commissioned in '42, last commissioned in '43) 1 Audacity-class Escort Carrier (originally the German merchant ship Hannover, captured in '40 and repurposed as a CVE in '41) 3 Minotaur-class Light Cruisers (8 planned, 5 cancelled; the first was transferred to Canada immediately after commissioning. All ships launched in '43 and completed in '44) 7 Crown Colony-class Light Cruisers (1 was transferred to the New Zealand navy) 5 Battle-class Destroyers (5 done by the end of the war, 10 launched; 26 total finished; 2 were given to Australia) 8 C-class Destroyers 8 Z-class Destroyers 8 W-class Destroyers 8 V-class Destroyers 8 U-class Destroyers 8 T-class Destroyers 8 S-class Destroyers 8 R-class Destroyers 8 Q-class Destroyers 8 P-class Destroyers 8 O-class Destroyers 8 M-class Destroyers 8 L-class Destroyers 83 Hunt-class Destroyer Escorts 22 V-class Submarines (42 planned, 20 cancelled) 4 Oruç Reis-class Submarines (originally for the Turkish navy, requisitioned by the RN in '40) 46 U-class Submarines 38 T-class Submarines Ships still under construction at the end of the war:
4 Audacious-class Aircraft Carriers (4 planned, 2 completed in the '50s, other 2 cancelled) 4 Colossus-class Light Carriers 5 Majestic-class Light Carriers (renamed and updgraded Colossus CVLs) 1 Vanguard-class Battleship (launched in '44, commissioned in '46) 10 Battle-class Destroyers 24 C-class Destroyers 46 Amphion-class Submarines (only 16 completed) |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 21, 2020 15:11:31 GMT
In the Alt-USN 1948 thread, I mentioned to Steve about design capacity and potentially the RN utilizing it for different ships before and in World War 2. This isn't a new idea; something similar has come up before on Warships1/NavWeaps for just a couple examples. Some thoughts for an alternate RN heavy unit building program with resources saved/utilized/redireced. Battleships
Royal Oak is the R-class that has been updated and is in the best condition Royal Sovereign is likely the ship in 'next best' condition, and when Ramilles was torpedoed, she put into Durban for repairs, and was surveyed by a naval constructor named Pengelly, who found her in excellent condition despite being 26 years old at the time. Revenge was probably the worst of the class. So instead of making the KGVs a five-ship class to replace the Rs, make them a 3 ship class to replace Revenge and Resolution and start increasing battleship numbers.
Lay down the the three KGV class on 1 Jan 1937 per Second London. With 52 of the 13.5in guns in storage, utilize 36 to lay them down as 12 x 13.5in ships with 20 x 4.5in secondaries. The new quad turrets should have 40-45 degree elevation for long range gunnery. The remaining 16 13.5in guns get refurbished as spares for the ships when commissioned. Utilize a 1,400 lbs shell for the 13.5in, as Erin carried for her entire life and other RN ships got later in life.
When the caliber escalator is effective on 1 April 1937, immediately start development of the 16in Mk II. Lay down 4 Lions in late 1937-early 1938 0 x 16in and 20 x 4.5in. Lay down an additional pair in late 1938-early 1939. When the tonnage escalator comes about on 31 March 1938, the designs are modified to 40,000 ton ships. With six Lions on the ways, there is no need for Vanguard.
Resources saved: Design staff - no changes to KGV design, no Vanguard' heavy gun development - no 14in developed Resources used: Design staff - 16in BB design to 40,000 tons' heavy dun development - 16in Mk II Aircraft Carriers While it is difficult to get the most out of carriers with the FAA only being returned in 1937, Glorious and Courageous have a good aircraft capacity (48) and like Furious (36 aircraft normally), large elevators. Ark Royal is a modern design with a good aircraft capacity. Forget about armored carriers, continue the Ark Royal design for the next four carriers, replacing the armored deck Illustrious, Victorious, Furious and Indomitable. Design Implacable and Indefatigable as 27,500 ton carriers with more aircraft, aviation fuel and range.
Resource saved: Design staff - no armored deck carriers; armor production
Resource used: Design staff - 27,500 ton carrier design
Cruisers With Edinburgh and Belfast, the Town class reached their zenith. Instead of trying to cram their firepower into 8,000 tons, continue Town class production instead of some Colonies. If anything, make them a little larger once the treaties lapse, say 13,000 to 14,000 tons for better protection and more light AA. We'll call these bigger CLs Swiftsures.
Instead of Didos convert all C-class and D-class to CLAA.
For a smaller 8,000 ton cruiser, go to series production for the Amphion/Perth class in place of Didos and Colonies. If increased AA firepower is desired, remove X-turret from the design for additional heavy or medium AA guns.
Resource saved: Design staff - No Didos, no Colonies' Medium gun production - No 5.25in
Resource used: Design staff - Larger Town class' medium AA gun production - more 4in for AA conversions
Criticism welcome. Also, I'm not sure how to improve destroyers without having several Exchequers meet an untimely demise until they will pay for all destroyers to have high-angle main armament and high-angle fire control. Submarines are difficult to improve as well. I think the T-class is perfect for the Pacific, but they were out of their element in the North Sea and Mediterranean. The Med was dangerous to begin with, but at least the U-Class wasn't a major investment of resources.
Escort carriers, frigates, corvettes, destroyer conversions for escort, monitors, MTBs and MGB could be other categories as well.
Regards,
Would this also fit in this thread. (Royal Navy) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 1936, the RN was the largest navy in the world and was responsible for holding together the vast British Empire. However, the RN was old and was quickly being outclassed by Japan and the US. Japan's navy in particular was considered the greatest threat to the RN, mostly because Japan's battleships and carriers were ahead of their western counterparts in terms of firepower, speed, and reliability, a direct result of Japanese ingenuity that was later copied by the other navies (see Japanese entry). To add to the RN's problems, due to the various naval treaties limiting the number and size of capital ships as well as the global depression, the RN was unable to modernize and had to rely on ships built during and shortly after WW1. The most important of which, when concerning the slow pace of RN modernization, was the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, which forbid construction of battleships for 10 years and limited all signatories to hard limits. The RN was hurt the most by the treaty, as it exceeded the capital ship limits right from the start. All of that changed as a result of the German Deutschland-class Heavy Cruisers launched in the early '30s. The German Panzerschiffe prompted the French, who hadn't yet reached the treaty limitations on battleships, to begin construction of the Dunkerque-class Fast Battleship, which in turn prompted the Italians to begin construction of their Vittorio Veneto-class Battleships, which in turn prompted the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, ultimately cascading into a new global arms race involving the naval powers of the US, UK, USSR, Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, Japan, and Spain. However, because the UK maintained strict treaty adherence even while Japan, its chief rival, withdrew from the treaty in '36, the RN's ships were outdated, outgunned, and ultimately outclassed by Japan's ships, and as a result the RN suffered horribly in the Asian theater. The 1936 RN OOB, commissioned ships only:
3 Courageous-class Carriers 1 Hermes-class Escort Carrier 1 Eagle-class Escort Carrier 1 Argus-class Escort Carrier 2 Nelson-class Battleships 5 Revenge-class Battleships (8 ordered prior to WW1, 2 converted to Renown-class BCs, 1 never finished) 5 Queen Elizabeth-class Super Dreadnoughts (6 ordered prior to WW1, 1 never finished) 1 Admiral-class Battlecruiser (4 ordered prior to WW1, only the HMS Hood completed) 2 Renown-class Battlecruisers (converted Revenge-class BBs) 2 York-class Heavy cruisers (5 planned, 2 completed) 2 Norfolk-class Heavy Cruisers (4 planned, 2 completed) 4 London-class Heavy Cruisers 7 Kent-class Heavy Cruisers 4 Hawkins-class Heavy Cruisers (5 completed, 1 lost in the interwar period) 2 Arethusa-class Light Cruisers (6 ordered, 4 finished) 5 Leander-class Light Cruisers (8 ordered, all finished) 2 Emerald-class Light Cruisers (3 ordered, 2 finished) 8 Danae-class Light Cruisers (12 ordered, 8 finished) 13 C-class Light Cruisers (28 completed, 15 scrapped by '36) 18 E & F-class Destroyers 14 C & D-class Destroyers 20 A & B-class Destroyers 27 V & W-class Destroyers (67 ordered, 27 completed) 8 Scott-class Destroyers (10 ordered, 8 completed) 3 River-class Submarines 12 S-class Submarines (62 completed in total, most of the 50 not in service were lost during storms in the interwar period) 4 Rainbow-class Submarines (6 ordered, 4 completed) 6 Parthian-class Submarines 12 Odin-class Submarines 10 R-class Submarines (12 ordered, 10 completed) 26 H-class Submarines (42 completed, 8 lost pre-war, 6 sold to Chile, 2 transferred to Canada) The 1936 RN OOB, launched ships only:
2 Arethusa-class Light Cruisers (2 more were planned but ultimately canceled) 18 G & H-class Destroyers Additional commissioned ships by the start of the war
1 Ark Royal-class Aircraft Carrier (launched in '37, commissioned in '38, designed to provide protection against enemy aircraft) 10 Town-class Light Cruisers 9 I-class Destroyers 16 Tribal-class Destroyers 8 J-class Destroyers (9 ordered, 1 canceled) 1 K-class Destroyer 3 U-class Submarines 15 T-class Submarines (71 ordered, 18 cancelled) Additional launched ships by the start of the war (aka they were "in the build queue") 3 Illustrious-class Aircraft Carriers (launched in '39) 2 King George V-class Battleships 2 Lion-class Battleships* (4 planned, all cancelled; these ships were never launched, but construction did start on them hence why they're included) 1 Pretoria Castle-class Escort Carrier (repurposed armed merchant ship, purchased by the RN in October '39) 4 Crown Colony-class Light Cruisers 5 Dido-class Light Cruisers 4 I-class Destroyers (these were meant to be sold to Turkey, but 2 were delivered to Turkey and the other 2 acquired by the RN) 7 K-class Destroyers Ships completed by the end of the war:
2 Implacable-class Aircraft Carriers (launched in '42, completed in '44) 3 King George V-class Battleships 1 Unicorn-class Light Carrier (launched in '41, commissioned in '43) 4 Colossus-class Light Carriers (16 planned, 7 re-purposed, 1 cancelled) 2 Colossus-class Maintenance Carriers (repurposed Colossus CVLs, these ships were meant to act as mobile aircraft repair-yards, as RN carriers were too small to fulfill that role) 1 Activity-class Escort Carrier (launched & commissioned in '42) 3 Nairana-class Escort Carriers (launched in '42, 2 commissioned in '42, last commissioned in '43) 1 Audacity-class Escort Carrier (originally the German merchant ship Hannover, captured in '40 and repurposed as a CVE in '41) 3 Minotaur-class Light Cruisers (8 planned, 5 cancelled; the first was transferred to Canada immediately after commissioning. All ships launched in '43 and completed in '44) 7 Crown Colony-class Light Cruisers (1 was transferred to the New Zealand navy) 5 Battle-class Destroyers (5 done by the end of the war, 10 launched; 26 total finished; 2 were given to Australia) 8 C-class Destroyers 8 Z-class Destroyers 8 W-class Destroyers 8 V-class Destroyers 8 U-class Destroyers 8 T-class Destroyers 8 S-class Destroyers 8 R-class Destroyers 8 Q-class Destroyers 8 P-class Destroyers 8 O-class Destroyers 8 M-class Destroyers 8 L-class Destroyers 83 Hunt-class Destroyer Escorts 22 V-class Submarines (42 planned, 20 cancelled) 4 Oruç Reis-class Submarines (originally for the Turkish navy, requisitioned by the RN in '40) 46 U-class Submarines 38 T-class Submarines Ships still under construction at the end of the war:
4 Audacious-class Aircraft Carriers (4 planned, 2 completed in the '50s, other 2 cancelled) 4 Colossus-class Light Carriers 5 Majestic-class Light Carriers (renamed and updgraded Colossus CVLs) 1 Vanguard-class Battleship (launched in '44, commissioned in '46) 10 Battle-class Destroyers 24 C-class Destroyers 46 Amphion-class Submarines (only 16 completed)
I would say that while the problems mentioned were a considerable factor the primary reason why Britain lost so badly in the early part of the war against Japan was simply because so much was tied down in the war against the European Axis powers. If things had been reasonably quiet in Europe then Britain would have been able to send far more forces to protect their interests in SE Asia. The RN would have been outclassed by the IJN in a number of ways, especially in terms of carrier air power and is likely to have one or two big shocks but Japan doesn't have the industrial or technological depth at this time period for a prolonged war even against say Britain and the Netherlands on their own. In such a conflict it would probably take 2-3 years at least to wear Japan down and it might well not end in unconditional surrender but your likely to see the Japanese military and economy greatly reduced and their forces driven from China.
That is an interesting list of what the UK was seeking to build in this period although many would not be completed due to the problems of the war.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 21, 2020 15:15:35 GMT
Would this also fit in this thread. (Royal Navy) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 1936, the RN was the largest navy in the world and was responsible for holding together the vast British Empire. However, the RN was old and was quickly being outclassed by Japan and the US. Japan's navy in particular was considered the greatest threat to the RN, mostly because Japan's battleships and carriers were ahead of their western counterparts in terms of firepower, speed, and reliability, a direct result of Japanese ingenuity that was later copied by the other navies (see Japanese entry). To add to the RN's problems, due to the various naval treaties limiting the number and size of capital ships as well as the global depression, the RN was unable to modernize and had to rely on ships built during and shortly after WW1. The most important of which, when concerning the slow pace of RN modernization, was the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, which forbid construction of battleships for 10 years and limited all signatories to hard limits. The RN was hurt the most by the treaty, as it exceeded the capital ship limits right from the start. All of that changed as a result of the German Deutschland-class Heavy Cruisers launched in the early '30s. The German Panzerschiffe prompted the French, who hadn't yet reached the treaty limitations on battleships, to begin construction of the Dunkerque-class Fast Battleship, which in turn prompted the Italians to begin construction of their Vittorio Veneto-class Battleships, which in turn prompted the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, ultimately cascading into a new global arms race involving the naval powers of the US, UK, USSR, Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, Japan, and Spain. However, because the UK maintained strict treaty adherence even while Japan, its chief rival, withdrew from the treaty in '36, the RN's ships were outdated, outgunned, and ultimately outclassed by Japan's ships, and as a result the RN suffered horribly in the Asian theater. The 1936 RN OOB, commissioned ships only:
3 Courageous-class Carriers 1 Hermes-class Escort Carrier 1 Eagle-class Escort Carrier 1 Argus-class Escort Carrier 2 Nelson-class Battleships 5 Revenge-class Battleships (8 ordered prior to WW1, 2 converted to Renown-class BCs, 1 never finished) 5 Queen Elizabeth-class Super Dreadnoughts (6 ordered prior to WW1, 1 never finished) 1 Admiral-class Battlecruiser (4 ordered prior to WW1, only the HMS Hood completed) 2 Renown-class Battlecruisers (converted Revenge-class BBs) 2 York-class Heavy cruisers (5 planned, 2 completed) 2 Norfolk-class Heavy Cruisers (4 planned, 2 completed) 4 London-class Heavy Cruisers 7 Kent-class Heavy Cruisers 4 Hawkins-class Heavy Cruisers (5 completed, 1 lost in the interwar period) 2 Arethusa-class Light Cruisers (6 ordered, 4 finished) 5 Leander-class Light Cruisers (8 ordered, all finished) 2 Emerald-class Light Cruisers (3 ordered, 2 finished) 8 Danae-class Light Cruisers (12 ordered, 8 finished) 13 C-class Light Cruisers (28 completed, 15 scrapped by '36) 18 E & F-class Destroyers 14 C & D-class Destroyers 20 A & B-class Destroyers 27 V & W-class Destroyers (67 ordered, 27 completed) 8 Scott-class Destroyers (10 ordered, 8 completed) 3 River-class Submarines 12 S-class Submarines (62 completed in total, most of the 50 not in service were lost during storms in the interwar period) 4 Rainbow-class Submarines (6 ordered, 4 completed) 6 Parthian-class Submarines 12 Odin-class Submarines 10 R-class Submarines (12 ordered, 10 completed) 26 H-class Submarines (42 completed, 8 lost pre-war, 6 sold to Chile, 2 transferred to Canada) The 1936 RN OOB, launched ships only:
2 Arethusa-class Light Cruisers (2 more were planned but ultimately canceled) 18 G & H-class Destroyers Additional commissioned ships by the start of the war
1 Ark Royal-class Aircraft Carrier (launched in '37, commissioned in '38, designed to provide protection against enemy aircraft) 10 Town-class Light Cruisers 9 I-class Destroyers 16 Tribal-class Destroyers 8 J-class Destroyers (9 ordered, 1 canceled) 1 K-class Destroyer 3 U-class Submarines 15 T-class Submarines (71 ordered, 18 cancelled) Additional launched ships by the start of the war (aka they were "in the build queue") 3 Illustrious-class Aircraft Carriers (launched in '39) 2 King George V-class Battleships 2 Lion-class Battleships* (4 planned, all cancelled; these ships were never launched, but construction did start on them hence why they're included) 1 Pretoria Castle-class Escort Carrier (repurposed armed merchant ship, purchased by the RN in October '39) 4 Crown Colony-class Light Cruisers 5 Dido-class Light Cruisers 4 I-class Destroyers (these were meant to be sold to Turkey, but 2 were delivered to Turkey and the other 2 acquired by the RN) 7 K-class Destroyers Ships completed by the end of the war:
2 Implacable-class Aircraft Carriers (launched in '42, completed in '44) 3 King George V-class Battleships 1 Unicorn-class Light Carrier (launched in '41, commissioned in '43) 4 Colossus-class Light Carriers (16 planned, 7 re-purposed, 1 cancelled) 2 Colossus-class Maintenance Carriers (repurposed Colossus CVLs, these ships were meant to act as mobile aircraft repair-yards, as RN carriers were too small to fulfill that role) 1 Activity-class Escort Carrier (launched & commissioned in '42) 3 Nairana-class Escort Carriers (launched in '42, 2 commissioned in '42, last commissioned in '43) 1 Audacity-class Escort Carrier (originally the German merchant ship Hannover, captured in '40 and repurposed as a CVE in '41) 3 Minotaur-class Light Cruisers (8 planned, 5 cancelled; the first was transferred to Canada immediately after commissioning. All ships launched in '43 and completed in '44) 7 Crown Colony-class Light Cruisers (1 was transferred to the New Zealand navy) 5 Battle-class Destroyers (5 done by the end of the war, 10 launched; 26 total finished; 2 were given to Australia) 8 C-class Destroyers 8 Z-class Destroyers 8 W-class Destroyers 8 V-class Destroyers 8 U-class Destroyers 8 T-class Destroyers 8 S-class Destroyers 8 R-class Destroyers 8 Q-class Destroyers 8 P-class Destroyers 8 O-class Destroyers 8 M-class Destroyers 8 L-class Destroyers 83 Hunt-class Destroyer Escorts 22 V-class Submarines (42 planned, 20 cancelled) 4 Oruç Reis-class Submarines (originally for the Turkish navy, requisitioned by the RN in '40) 46 U-class Submarines 38 T-class Submarines Ships still under construction at the end of the war:
4 Audacious-class Aircraft Carriers (4 planned, 2 completed in the '50s, other 2 cancelled) 4 Colossus-class Light Carriers 5 Majestic-class Light Carriers (renamed and updgraded Colossus CVLs) 1 Vanguard-class Battleship (launched in '44, commissioned in '46) 10 Battle-class Destroyers 24 C-class Destroyers 46 Amphion-class Submarines (only 16 completed) I would say that while the problems mentioned were a considerable factor the primary reason why Britain lost so badly in the early part of the war against Japan was simply because so much was tied down in the war against the European Axis powers. If things had been reasonably quiet in Europe then Britain would have been able to send far more forces to protect their interests in SE Asia. The RN would have been outclassed by the IJN in a number of ways, especially in terms of carrier air power and is likely to have one or two big shocks but Japan doesn't have the industrial or technological depth at this time period for a prolonged war even against say Britain and the Netherlands on their own. In such a conflict it would probably take 2-3 years at least to wear Japan down and it might well not end in unconditional surrender but your likely to see the Japanese military and economy greatly reduced and their forces driven from China. That is an interesting list of what the UK was seeking to build in this period although many would not be completed due to the problems of the war. Steve
The list does not mention the Malta-class carriers, could that be because they where planned in 1943 and canceled in 1945 as the Wikipedia page of the Malta-class says: The Admiralty ordered Vickers not to order any more material on 27 April 1944 and given that final drawings were never issued to the builders, it is unlikely that any of them actually did more than preliminary work. None of the ships were ever laid down and all of them were cancelled before the end of 1945. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 21, 2020 17:16:25 GMT
Some interesting ideas but a few concerns. a) Using the old 13.5" barrels which are wire wound aren't they going to be at least as heavy as the new 14" guns and as such still going to raise concerns about the level of protection? Would it be better if the ships, whether using old 13.5" or new 14" had been designed with three triples from the start. Giving more reliable turrets, only one less gun that OTL and hence not the delay while the OTL double was developed. Also if your redesigning the turret to allow max elevation of 40-45 degrees won't that take some effort and complicate the procedure. [Think your going to do this from the start but its still going to be a more complex design, which will hence take up some effort. [/div] Hi stevep ,, Thanks for chiming in. In their account of the genesis of the KGV class, Raven and Roberts state that design 14L was the 12 x 14in/20 x 4.6in design. 14O then changed the secondaries to 16 x 5.25in. 14P was initially going to be 9 x 14in/16 x 5.25in, but it was decided to add another gun, so 14O's B turret got changed to a twin, and the historic KGV we know was almost done. The citadel had to be extended another 10ft forward to compensate for the weight. So while I think you are onto something with nine gun ship (which Tiornu of Warships1 used to say might be the ideal Second London battleship) I think with the 14in the RN wanted number of barrels, as that was part of their logic in going to the new, smaller caliber. With the 13.5in we get numbers. In fact the 12 x 13.5in ship (1410 lb shell = 16,920 lbs) has a heavier broadside than the 10 x 14in ship, (1590 lb shell - 15,900 lbs) With the barrel weights, the 13.5in weighed 74.82 long tons, while the 14in weighed in at about 79.6 long tons (for the early guns, the later were just under 79 long tons) www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_135-45_mk5.phpwww.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.phpNote in the 14in that the later 14in guns had a redesigned breach and used a balance wieght to enable them to lower deeper, thus allowing more elevation without changing the design of the turret. Well, all five KGV class were laid down in 1937 (2 on 1 Jan, 5 May- DOY, 1 June- Howe, 10 July- Anson). In laying down three in 1937, we're moving Lion and Temeraire from 28 February 1939 to late 1937, so back to five ships in one year again, and another pair around when Lion and Temeraire were actually ordered, so we're not far off the historic with the schedule I proposed. I do agree, another pair in late 1938 will stretch the industrial basem, but having hulls waiting for fittings would not be unusual, especially after the war starts. And in the case of war, the later ships might be delayed in any case. I'd also note that the 16in design was initially based on 35,000 tons, and raised when the tonnage escalator came about. . [/div] I can see where the armored deck and AA guns were wanted over the aircraft capacity, but I think greater aircraft capacity would be a greater advantage to the RN. I am not sure an unarmored ship would fare any different than Illustrious did off Crete. One hit just forward of the aft elevator exploding in the elevator well, one on the unarmored lift, one on the forward port pom-pom mount that failed to detonate, One well forward that penetrated the deck edge and exploded outside the hull above the waterline (splinter damaged did cause flooding). the bad hit was one that penetrated deck armor and exploded above the hangar floor, destroying the forward lift, blowing a whole in the hangar floor, starting a bad fire and destroying the sprinkler system and fire curtains. An unarmored ship might have that hit explode within the hull, but may be better off for it as the hangar fire might be avoided, and the sprinkler system would survive. [/quote] That sounds realistic. Not everything always goes perfect (if I have a criticism of the Tarrantry alt-history, it is Tarrantry ALWAYS makes perfect decisions with respect to ship building and design!. But I digress...) 36/15A-15B was the battleship the RN really wanted but it could not be obtained with the 14in limit. Nine 15in on 35,000 tons was felt to be well balanced, and a new 15in/45 capable of firing the legacy 15in ammunition would have been the gun. with 6 crh shells, it would have had excellent range as well. Dimensionally, the barrels should be very close, and the fitting just need to match on the replacement barrels, but I think it should be possible. One of my thoughts with a 12 x 13.5in KGV is without changes, Prince of Wales is fully worked up for Denmark Strait. Built-up guns are generally lighter than wire-wound construction of the same caliber. I think escort carriers are a function of need and excess merchant hulls. Say more of the UK's aviation industry is devoted to naval aviation, and more carrier planes means more pilots. A pre-war need for an additional training deck could mean a pre-war Pretoria Castle-like conversion, laying the groundwork or being a prototype for wartime escort carriers. Part of the problem is the need for merchant hulls. It's really with the massive US industrial capacity that hulls can be spared for escort carriers. I don't know if the UK could prioritize escort carriers over merchant hulls wit the submarine losses in the earlier part of the war. But if there was already a precedent, it might be more palatable.
Regards,
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 21, 2020 17:27:10 GMT
Would this also fit in this thread. (Royal Navy) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 1936, the RN was the largest navy in the world and was responsible for holding together the vast British Empire. However, the RN was old and was quickly being outclassed by Japan and the US. Japan's navy in particular was considered the greatest threat to the RN, mostly because Japan's battleships and carriers were ahead of their western counterparts in terms of firepower, speed, and reliability, a direct result of Japanese ingenuity that was later copied by the other navies (see Japanese entry). To add to the RN's problems, due to the various naval treaties limiting the number and size of capital ships as well as the global depression, the RN was unable to modernize and had to rely on ships built during and shortly after WW1. The most important of which, when concerning the slow pace of RN modernization, was the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, which forbid construction of battleships for 10 years and limited all signatories to hard limits. The RN was hurt the most by the treaty, as it exceeded the capital ship limits right from the start. All of that changed as a result of the German Deutschland-class Heavy Cruisers launched in the early '30s. The German Panzerschiffe prompted the French, who hadn't yet reached the treaty limitations on battleships, to begin construction of the Dunkerque-class Fast Battleship, which in turn prompted the Italians to begin construction of their Vittorio Veneto-class Battleships, which in turn prompted the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, ultimately cascading into a new global arms race involving the naval powers of the US, UK, USSR, Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, Japan, and Spain. However, because the UK maintained strict treaty adherence even while Japan, its chief rival, withdrew from the treaty in '36, the RN's ships were outdated, outgunned, and ultimately outclassed by Japan's ships, and as a result the RN suffered horribly in the Asian theater.
That's not exactly true. Yes, the RN scrapped more ships under the treaties, but they had more capital ships than anyone else, as well as more 12in armed ships they no longer wanted as they were obsolete.
Also, saying "because the UK maintained strict treaty adherence even while Japan, its chief rival, withdrew from the treaty in '36, the RN's ships were outdated, outgunned, and ultimately outclassed by Japan's ships, and as a result the RN suffered horribly in the Asian theater" is an infuriating, fearless display of ignorance. EVERYONE observed the capital ship holiday. Italy and France had exceptions allowing for modern ships and they took advantage of them, but those were also PART OF THE TREATIES. EVERYONE had older, outdated, outgunned ships. Everyone suffered with these ships on the front lines. If anything, the RN was better off because it was so large a navy. Take the R-class for example. They were FULLY in the front lines in the first half of the war, yet other than Royal Oak being sunk in harbor, none were lost in combat.
Yes, C and D class cruisers were lost, but they were also still useful and had important roles to play, especially the CLAA conversions.
Older destroyers found new lives in the convoy escort business, etc.
My thoughts,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 21, 2020 17:31:09 GMT
Older destroyers found new lives in the convoy escort business, etc.
Ore where transferred to other countries during the war i guess. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 21, 2020 17:31:50 GMT
I would say that while the problems mentioned were a considerable factor the primary reason why Britain lost so badly in the early part of the war against Japan was simply because so much was tied down in the war against the European Axis powers. If things had been reasonably quiet in Europe then Britain would have been able to send far more forces to protect their interests in SE Asia. The RN would have been outclassed by the IJN in a number of ways, especially in terms of carrier air power and is likely to have one or two big shocks but Japan doesn't have the industrial or technological depth at this time period for a prolonged war even against say Britain and the Netherlands on their own. In such a conflict it would probably take 2-3 years at least to wear Japan down and it might well not end in unconditional surrender but your likely to see the Japanese military and economy greatly reduced and their forces driven from China.
That is an interesting list of what the UK was seeking to build in this period although many would not be completed due to the problems of the war.
Steve
Steve,
I think the RN knew things were going down-hill from Munich on. I referenced transcribing things for David Chessum. In those documents, Rodney and Nelson are actually ahead of Hood in the rebuild schedule due to the pathetic states of their electrical systems. That they and Hood never got into the rebuild cycle was because of the deterioriating international situation. All three were very powerful, the newer pair because of their 16in guns and Hood because she could carry her 15in guns very fast.
My thoughts,
|
|
