1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 21, 2020 17:35:27 GMT
Ore where transferred to other countries during the war i guess.
That reminds me, with international sales, the RN was able to take over the six H-class destroyers building for Brazil....
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 21, 2020 17:42:22 GMT
Ore where transferred to other countries during the war i guess. That reminds me, with international sales, the RN was able to take over the six H-class destroyers building for Brazil....
And in return, Brazil decided to produce indigenous destroyers, the Acre class, at the Ilha das Cobras shipyard, Rio de Janeiro. The design was based on the H-class plans supplied by Britain, but with guns and machinery supplied by the United States. Although laid down in 1940, the ships were not completed until 1949–51. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 21, 2020 18:26:58 GMT
And in return, Brazil decided to produce indigenous destroyers, the Acre class, at the Ilha das Cobras shipyard, Rio de Janeiro. The design was based on the H-class plans supplied by Britain, but with guns and machinery supplied by the United States. Although laid down in 1940, the ships were not completed until 1949–51. They were already familiar with US equipment from the Marcilio Dias class that were built between 1937-1943, These three ships were based on the US Mahan class destroyers.
Regards,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 21, 2020 18:30:24 GMT
Question, the Malta class carrier, was its design based on lessons learned by the RN during the 1939 to 1943 period.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 21, 2020 23:59:05 GMT
Question, the Malta class carrier, was its design based on lessons learned by the RN during the 1939 to 1943 period. Yes, Malta would have had 17 ft. 6in hangars, four large lifts for bigger aircraft and sixteen arrestor wires. Some features were because of the size of the ship; twin islands came about because of an expansion joint for the flight deck amidships, so the island could not be a single structure.
Regards,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 22, 2020 6:26:03 GMT
Question, the Malta class carrier, was its design based on lessons learned by the RN during the 1939 to 1943 period. Yes, Malta would have had 17 ft. 6in hangars, four large lifts for bigger aircraft and sixteen arrestor wires. Some features were because of the size of the ship; twin islands came about because of an expansion joint for the flight deck amidships, so the island could not be a single structure.
Regards, The Malta Class would not be ready before 1949 i think, could a other Carrier design that was already being build take here place, with ore without any modification to their design. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 22, 2020 10:50:58 GMT
1bigrich , You mention that the built up guns are normally lighter than the wire wound ones and that the 14" design were designed to allow a very high elevation which is possibly why they were heavier than the old 13.5" guns. However since you wanted the 13.5" guns to have high elevation as well so I suspect that they would also be distinctly heavier? Know that the initial design was for 12x14" but I can't see the protection satisfying the RN on a 35k total and thinking that if they had gone for triple turrets from the start one less gun, whether 13.5" or 14" it wouldn't have significantly reduced their firepower and would have seen them in service earlier and probably more reliable without the complication of the quad turret.
Interesting but a quick check on Wiki and your right that all 5 KGV were laid down between 1-1-37 and 1-6-37. However they had started to drift on when they were launched, which was even before the fall of France with the last three a year behind the name ship so 6 months lost by then. Wondering if there was the capacity to lay down 5 but because of demand exceeding capacity for guns and for armour the RN knew that they wouldn't all be finished as closely together? Would have loved to have been able to lay down and construct 5 BB a year but everything I've read suggests the capacity wasn't there.
In terms of the armoured v unarmoured decks for the CVs it would of course have required the RN to have - and be sure of having - more and better a/c for them as well as being confident they would have the ability to intercept attackers. Those conditions I'm uncertain would be met. In the fighting in the Med two I class CV were hard hit but survived, albeit needing extensive repairs. Ditto in the Pacific they seemed very effective when they encountered kamikaze attack. The US had the resources to build a lot more CV and a/c than even a beleaguered Britain and take some losses but not sure that would have been the best route for Britain.
Thanks for the information about the possibility of producting new barrels for the older ships. If I ever actual write the TL - look out for low flying porkers  - then I would probably seek to include that aspect.
Steve
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 22, 2020 12:20:49 GMT
The Malta Class would not be ready before 1949 i think, could a other Carrier design that was already being build take here place, with ore without any modification to their design. I don't think there's another design that can step into Malta's place. Even Audacious was only 38,500 tons, compared to Malta's 45,000 or so.
My thoughts,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 22, 2020 12:59:02 GMT
The Malta Class would not be ready before 1949 i think, could a other Carrier design that was already being build take here place, with ore without any modification to their design. I don't think there's another design that can step into Malta's place. Even Audacious was only 38,500 tons, compared to Malta's 45,000 or so. My thoughts,
What about the Irresistible-class then as mentioned here: AUDACIOUS CLASSImproved flight deck armour: It was evident aircraft were now regularly hefting bombs greatly in excess of the 500lbs the 3in on Illustrious was optimised to resist. The sides of the ‘armoured box’ containing the hangar would remain at 1.5in “splinter protection” levels.
Increased aircraft capacity: Numbers carried had to be sufficient to sustain effective, all-day carrier air patrols. This was judged to be at least 64 machines.
Improved aircraft operability: Bigger lifts, more crew, more stores, more ammunition, more spares needed to be carried to accommodate deployments of more than a few days.
Increased flight deck size: The bigger the flight deck, the more aircraft could be crowded on it for flying-off operations. This meant a bigger strike could get airborne, faster.
The problem was time. New ships were needed fast.
To enables the keels to be laid fast, the basic hull-form of Implacable would be retained.
Drawings were urgently submitted in November 1941 for a 27,000 ton ship with an even further enlarged forward lift of 45ft by 33ft. Tweaks to the specifications allowed the hangars to accommodate four rows of aircraft (for a total of 54 machines) instead of the existing three. It was feared the tonnage and hull limitation meant the new design would retain Implacable’s 14ft hangars, though it was discovered some extra height could be recovered through reducing the depth of structural beams.
The revised group would be given the class-name Irresistible |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 22, 2020 13:16:39 GMT
1bigrich , You mention that the built up guns are normally lighter than the wire wound ones and that the 14" design were designed to allow a very high elevation which is possibly why they were heavier than the old 13.5" guns. However since you wanted the 13.5" guns to have high elevation as well so I suspect that they would also be distinctly heavier? Know that the initial design was for 12x14" but I can't see the protection satisfying the RN on a 35k total and thinking that if they had gone for triple turrets from the start one less gun, whether 13.5" or 14" it wouldn't have significantly reduced their firepower and would have seen them in service earlier and probably more reliable without the complication of the quad turret. I do know the RN used a counter weight on some of the 14in, but I would think the 13.5in in new turrets would be able to elevate to wherever the RN wanted them. It's not like we are recycling the old twins. As an aside, imagine if Second London didn't have the 14in caliber limit for capital ships but kept the 16in. That might be a POD to get the RN a 9 x 15in battleship.... Steve, I don't think the RN could keep up that pace, at least not without putting money and effort into restoring the industrial base, but since they did it with 5 KGV, I would think they could do it with 3 of my alt- KGV and 2 Lions, especially since the former do not require heavy gun development.
I guess where at the divide of protection versus more planes. I think more planes are important, but I understand why the RN went with protection. They couldn't fill the carriers they had with the British aviation industry mostly devoted to the RAF. Plkus they had to make that decision in the pre-radar era. I think the lessons of war changed their mind, though, as the Maltas were designed without an armored flight deck.
Replacing old barrels might be a point of diminishing returns, especially if heavy gun production is limited, but the RN did do such a thing with their older destroyers: www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_47-45_mk1.phpBy 1940, many of these weapons were wearing out and the ones that remained were almost all mounted on obsolescent warships. Rather than simply replacing these worn-out Mark I guns with a similar, already available weapon such as the 4.7" (12 cm) QF, the British instead wasted scarce resources to design and manufacture a new, direct replacement gun of modern construction techniques, the Mark II. I can think of no better illustration of just how low a priority the Royal Navy assigned to ordnance standardization prior to the 1950s.
In this case though, they manufactured new guns to the old design instead of simply replacing them with a modern new guns. Regards, |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 22, 2020 13:18:33 GMT
What about the Irresistible-class then as mentioned here: AUDACIOUS CLASSImproved flight deck armour: It was evident aircraft were now regularly hefting bombs greatly in excess of the 500lbs the 3in on Illustrious was optimised to resist. The sides of the ‘armoured box’ containing the hangar would remain at 1.5in “splinter protection” levels.
Increased aircraft capacity: Numbers carried had to be sufficient to sustain effective, all-day carrier air patrols. This was judged to be at least 64 machines.
Improved aircraft operability: Bigger lifts, more crew, more stores, more ammunition, more spares needed to be carried to accommodate deployments of more than a few days.
Increased flight deck size: The bigger the flight deck, the more aircraft could be crowded on it for flying-off operations. This meant a bigger strike could get airborne, faster.
The problem was time. New ships were needed fast.
To enables the keels to be laid fast, the basic hull-form of Implacable would be retained.
Drawings were urgently submitted in November 1941 for a 27,000 ton ship with an even further enlarged forward lift of 45ft by 33ft. Tweaks to the specifications allowed the hangars to accommodate four rows of aircraft (for a total of 54 machines) instead of the existing three. It was feared the tonnage and hull limitation meant the new design would retain Implacable’s 14ft hangars, though it was discovered some extra height could be recovered through reducing the depth of structural beams.
The revised group would be given the class-name Irresistible
They are close but 64 aircraft in my opinion doesn't compare to Malta carrying between 80 and 110 (depending on type, Sea Mosquito for example).
My thoughts,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 22, 2020 13:24:30 GMT
What about the Irresistible-class then as mentioned here: AUDACIOUS CLASSImproved flight deck armour: It was evident aircraft were now regularly hefting bombs greatly in excess of the 500lbs the 3in on Illustrious was optimised to resist. The sides of the ‘armoured box’ containing the hangar would remain at 1.5in “splinter protection” levels.
Increased aircraft capacity: Numbers carried had to be sufficient to sustain effective, all-day carrier air patrols. This was judged to be at least 64 machines.
Improved aircraft operability: Bigger lifts, more crew, more stores, more ammunition, more spares needed to be carried to accommodate deployments of more than a few days.
Increased flight deck size: The bigger the flight deck, the more aircraft could be crowded on it for flying-off operations. This meant a bigger strike could get airborne, faster.
The problem was time. New ships were needed fast.
To enables the keels to be laid fast, the basic hull-form of Implacable would be retained.
Drawings were urgently submitted in November 1941 for a 27,000 ton ship with an even further enlarged forward lift of 45ft by 33ft. Tweaks to the specifications allowed the hangars to accommodate four rows of aircraft (for a total of 54 machines) instead of the existing three. It was feared the tonnage and hull limitation meant the new design would retain Implacable’s 14ft hangars, though it was discovered some extra height could be recovered through reducing the depth of structural beams.
The revised group would be given the class-name IrresistibleThey are close but 64 aircraft in my opinion doesn't compare to Malta carrying between 80 and 110 (depending on type, Sea Mosquito for example). My thoughts,
So best option in this scenario is not build a carrier with armored deck but pump out regular fleet carriers with a good size air group. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 22, 2020 13:59:38 GMT
1bigrich , You mention that the built up guns are normally lighter than the wire wound ones and that the 14" design were designed to allow a very high elevation which is possibly why they were heavier than the old 13.5" guns. However since you wanted the 13.5" guns to have high elevation as well so I suspect that they would also be distinctly heavier? Know that the initial design was for 12x14" but I can't see the protection satisfying the RN on a 35k total and thinking that if they had gone for triple turrets from the start one less gun, whether 13.5" or 14" it wouldn't have significantly reduced their firepower and would have seen them in service earlier and probably more reliable without the complication of the quad turret. I do know the RN used a counter weight on some of the 14in, but I would think the 13.5in in new turrets would be able to elevate to wherever the RN wanted them. It's not like we are recycling the old twins. As an aside, imagine if Second London didn't have the 14in caliber limit for capital ships but kept the 16in. That might be a POD to get the RN a 9 x 15in battleship.... Steve, I don't think the RN could keep up that pace, at least not without putting money and effort into restoring the industrial base, but since they did it with 5 KGV, I would think they could do it with 3 of my alt- KGV and 2 Lions, especially since the former do not require heavy gun development.
I guess where at the divide of protection versus more planes. I think more planes are important, but I understand why the RN went with protection. They couldn't fill the carriers they had with the British aviation industry mostly devoted to the RAF. Plkus they had to make that decision in the pre-radar era. I think the lessons of war changed their mind, though, as the Maltas were designed without an armored flight deck.
Replacing old barrels might be a point of diminishing returns, especially if heavy gun production is limited, but the RN did do such a thing with their older destroyers: www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_47-45_mk1.phpBy 1940, many of these weapons were wearing out and the ones that remained were almost all mounted on obsolescent warships. Rather than simply replacing these worn-out Mark I guns with a similar, already available weapon such as the 4.7" (12 cm) QF, the British instead wasted scarce resources to design and manufacture a new, direct replacement gun of modern construction techniques, the Mark II. I can think of no better illustration of just how low a priority the Royal Navy assigned to ordnance standardization prior to the 1950s.
In this case though, they manufactured new guns to the old design instead of simply replacing them with a modern new guns. Regards,
Sorry I was thinking that whatever the RN did for the 14" to get the high elevation would be needed for reusing the old 13.5", at least unless you did a drastic redesign of the turret, which would require design time.
Yes if Britain hadn't pushed for the 14" limit then a 9x15" with a modernised gun might well have had a 9x15" design resulting. That would probably have been better for Britain especially since they might have entered service faster.
I was thinking with a new 15" being designed earlier, or at least barrels being produced, they might be useful for replacing the older guns when assorted ships - chiefly the Queen E class - go in for their reconstruction. Although if it does no more than reduce the top-weight a little due to their stronger construction it may not be worthwhile.
Steve
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 22, 2020 18:27:24 GMT
Sorry I was thinking that whatever the RN did for the 14" to get the high elevation would be needed for reusing the old 13.5", at least unless you did a drastic redesign of the turret, which would require design time.
Yes if Britain hadn't pushed for the 14" limit then a 9x15" with a modernised gun might well have had a 9x15" design resulting. That would probably have been better for Britain especially since they might have entered service faster.
I was thinking with a new 15" being designed earlier, or at least barrels being produced, they might be useful for replacing the older guns when assorted ships - chiefly the Queen E class - go in for their reconstruction. Although if it does no more than reduce the top-weight a little due to their stronger construction it may not be worthwhile.
Steve
I think the quad turret needs to be designed anyway, so I don't see a quad 13.5in taking any longer than a quad 14in. I see the 52 13.5in barrels as an asset the RN specifically retained and did not use.
Superior, now under control of Alnavco, makes a nice 36/15A model, nine 15in and 20 4.5in. I'm planning a minor kit-bash with one, replace the triple 15in with quad 14in from KGV to make a model of 14L.
It would not be the first time the RN thought about a built-up 15in. The 15in/45 planned for F2 and F3 would have been built up, and able to utilize the existing 15in ammunition from the 15in/42 guns in the Rs, QEs and Hood.
Regards,
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Sept 19, 2020 15:24:57 GMT
When I first read this a few weeks back, I went looking for this information and finally found it:
1930, 51.7m, 3 6in cruisers, 9 destroyers, 3 submarines, 4 sloops
1931, 51.6m, 3 6in cruisers, 9 destroyers, 3 submarines, 2 sloops, 2 minesweepers
1932, 50.5m, 3 6in cruisers, 9 destroyers, 3 submarines, 2 sloops, 2 minesweepers
1933, 53.6m 3 6in cruisers, 9 destroyers, 3 submarines, 2 sloops, 1 patrol vessel, 2 minesweepers
1934, 56.6m, 1 aircraft carrier, 4 6in cruisers, 9 destroyers, 3 submarines, 2 sloops, 2 patrol vessels, 2 minesweepers.
1935, 60m, 3 6in cruisers, 16 destroyers, 3 submarines, 1 sloops, 2 patrol vessel, 3 minesweepers
1936, 70m, 2 battleships, 2 aircraft carriers, 2 6in cruisers, 5 5.25in cruisers, 18 destroyers, 8 submarines, 2 sloops, 1 patrol vessel, 3 minesweepers
1937, 78.1m, 3 battleships, 2 aircraft carriers, 5 6in cruisers, 2 5.25in cruisers, 15 destroyers, 7 submarines, 3 sloops, 3 patrol vessels, 4 minesweepers.
1938, 93.7m, 2 battleships, 1 carrier, 4 6in cruisers, 3 5.25in cruisers, 3 fast minelayers, 3 submarines, 1 aircraft maintenance ship
1939 69.4m, 2 battleships, 1 carrier, 2 6in cruisers, 1 fast minelayer, 16 detroyers, 20 hunts, 2 sloops, 56 corvetes, 20 minesweepers
"The program which begins with the 1936 estimates and ends with the 1945 estimates called for the following to be laid down over that period;
18 Battleships (5 KGV, 5 "Vanguard", 8 Lion)
8 Fleet carriers (inc one training)
5 Trade protection carriers
8 8in Cruisers (treaty 10,000 ton type)
37 large 6in cruisers (Belfast & Fiji types)
18 Small cruisers (eventually Didos)
2 Fast mine layers
24 Tribal class destroyers
90 J onwards type
3 AA sloops
37 MS sloops
13 Coastal sloops
|
|
- then I would probably seek to include that aspect.