1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Sept 30, 2020 4:00:29 GMT
A few points: Vanguard Vanguards only make sense of any kind when compared to nothing at all or continued Rs. As a fully-armoured battlecruiser/fast battleship, it was a fine vessel, but the 15"/42 was at the end of its development life. When first contemplated, the battleship wasn't nearly as dead as some would think. It was in some ways a better deal than 2 supercruisers, but they did have the advantage of there being two of them. The optimal BB for the RN is the Lion. Full agreement I think some of the detail faults of the KGVs, such as the sharp corners instead of rounded, might have seen them go to reserve earlier. I believe these were corrected in Vanguard, and would have been corrected in the Lions as well. I think one of the subtle accomplishments of Washington was that it added value to existing investment/expenditures. Ships like New York, Iron Duke, or Fuso, that would have been hopelessly outclassed by the likes of South Dakota, N3 or Tosa, had their useful lives extended greatly. Had the holiday not been extended by First London, even these bottlenecks might have been less constraining as new hulls would have been in commission and the industry put to more use over a longer time. Given First and Second London, I'm not sure another path was available... Regards, |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Sept 30, 2020 4:10:09 GMT
Actually, if the RN had had its way while still limited to the 35k limit its preference was for a design with 9x15" in three triple turrets. However the government was pushing for a reduction in the main armament to 14" so that size had to be adopted by the navy. [As I understand it that would have been a new solid cast gun rather than copying the old wire wound guns of WWI vintage although probably based closely on them. [/div] 15A/36 or 15B/36 were the historical concepts, IIRC. Nine 15in, 20 x 4.5in.
Agree. First London does seem to have been more of an obstacle to the UK than to the other signatories. [/quote] The planning for an strike on Taranto with carrier aircraft began during the Abyssinian Crisis. CinC Med was Dudley Pound. The Med Fleet's carrier was Glorious, and her captain at the time was one Lumley Lyster. Regards, |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Sept 30, 2020 4:23:51 GMT
Steve, Vanguard and any putative sisters worked because of the availability of slips and guns, but the armour bottleneck is the nasty part that crops up to prevent them being a completely ideal solution. The design of the ship herself with the exception of the main guns was very modern and right up there with late war/early postwar cutting edge battlewagon design. The 15"/45 was worked on from 1935 onwards, but the 35,000t limit was artificial and extremely limiting on nations that followed the Treaties; on those that were more flexible or cheated outright, it was less of an issue. I understand the desire for limits, but with the Continental powers all building 15in armed battleships, the 14in limit should never have existed. In my humble opinion, of course.... Agree, especially on the usefulness of the 13.5in armed ships. I think this is where the Mutsu problem arises. She had been paid for by public subscription, and the Japanese absolutely were NOT going to let her go to the breakers and waste all the good-will with the public her financing and construction had garnered. The initial draft of the 'ships to be retained' saw the US with Maryland as its premiere capital ship, the RN with Hood and the IJN with Nagato. The retention of Mutsu mean the us got to build 'two more West Virginias' (as the treaty called them) and the RN could build two new 35,000 ton ships with 16in guns, that became Nelson and Rodney. Would four Iron Dukes have been more useful to the RN in the '20s and '30s that two Nelsons? War would end the treaty regime for all powers. It might have been something the UK wished to avoid... Regards, [/quote][/quote] |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Sept 30, 2020 4:37:37 GMT
Agree that the 9 US with 14" guns were more parallel with the 15" ships Britain produced. They did have some shortcomings, most being coal fired originally and having a lower max elevation and hence range but the USN was able to remove those problems by extensive refits in most/all of them during the 1920's and 30's. Britain of course did get two more ships in Nelson and Rodney under the treaty, which were very good after some problems had been resolved but far more was needed to keep the RN battlefleet [and supporting construction industry] up to the sort of strength needed for any real crisis. [/div] The Standards were oil-fired. The older ships, the Wyomings and New Yorks were converted to oil firing. As an aside, the ships the USN sent to the UK in World War I to form the Sixth Battle Squadron (when it was reconstituted) were all coal-fired. Delaware, Florida, Arkansas, Wyoming, New York and Texas. The US didn't want to send oil-fired ships as it was felt there would be too much oil consumption in fleet operations given the RN already had some oil-fired capital ships. And the US had domestic access to good, hard anthracite coal from fields in the Eastern US. [/quote] The RN was a large navy on the strategic defensive, a position it was in for over a century by the time World War Two started. Japan started the war on the strategic offensive, but was built for the strategic defensive with the emphasis on the decisive battle (which planning steadily moved farther away from Home Waters as the interwar years passed). The USN was a large navy on the strategic offensive. It saw its mission as crossing the Pacific, fighting and defeating the Japanese and returning home. Those varied view impact choices... My thoughts, |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 30, 2020 15:19:07 GMT
Reading the thoughts of Steve and Simon sure is an education. Have either of you ever worked with a real BB?
Now this is no Sh!t 
In 1968, when I was on my first enlistment, my Can was part of Operation Sea Dragon along with New Jersey. We were inshore with our 4 5"38's she was father out.
You could sometimes hear those 16 inch rounds passing close by. They sounded like a freight train. We could sometimes see those High Capacity 16 inch shells tearing up the country side. Damn impressive.
I never had much use for the Big Boys. A short time aboard a CV convinced me it was too much
"chicken sh!t", like the army with saluting, pressed uniforms and far too much brass getting into your way.
Give me the small boys every time. The Tin Can Navy was good blue water sea duty.
But that's just me. I'm funny that way! 
No much admit I've very much an armchair general, basically its my interest in history, including military [which being British definitely includes the navy  ] matters.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 30, 2020 15:39:22 GMT
Steve, Vanguard and any putative sisters worked because of the availability of slips and guns, but the armour bottleneck is the nasty part that crops up to prevent them being a completely ideal solution. The design of the ship herself with the exception of the main guns was very modern and right up there with late war/early postwar cutting edge battlewagon design. The 15"/45 was worked on from 1935 onwards, but the 35,000t limit was artificial and extremely limiting on nations that followed the Treaties; on those that were more flexible or cheated outright, it was less of an issue. I understand the desire for limits, but with the Continental powers all building 15in armed battleships, the 14in limit should never have existed. In my humble opinion, of course.... Agree, especially on the usefulness of the 13.5in armed ships. I think this is where the Mutsu problem arises. She had been paid for by public subscription, and the Japanese absolutely were NOT going to let her go to the breakers and waste all the good-will with the public her financing and construction had garnered. The initial draft of the 'ships to be retained' saw the US with Maryland as its premiere capital ship, the RN with Hood and the IJN with Nagato. The retention of Mutsu mean the us got to build 'two more West Virginias' (as the treaty called them) and the RN could build two new 35,000 ton ships with 16in guns, that became Nelson and Rodney. Would four Iron Dukes have been more useful to the RN in the '20s and '30s that two Nelsons? War would end the treaty regime for all powers. It might have been something the UK wished to avoid... Regards, [/quote][/quote][/div]
a) Fully agree on the attempt to get a 14" limit. It was partly because the RN situation, with three threats, two basically on the doorstep, and an elderly fleet that the politicians having pushed for bringing that into the 36 treaty had to start building such ships as they couldn't afford to wait a year or so to see the collapse of the attempt and lay down 15" or 16" ships. 
b) Is there a cross purpose here as Simon was talking about the 13 ships with 15" guns and your reply mentions 13.5" ships, which were the Iron Dukes and earlier? Or possibly a typo?
c) I can't see 4 Iron Dukes being better than the 2 Nelsons. To make them practical ships the former would have needed extensive [and expensive] reconstructions, probably including removing the mid-ship turret to give the space for other changes. Which might well be illegal under the treaty. They would still have been markedly inferior to the Nelsons 1-on-1 by a large measure and while they would have twice the number this would have been expensive to man. Also I wouldn't fancy say sending even two of them against say a Bismarck to take the obvious example while a Nelson, while it couldn't catch a Bismarck or other late 30's ship can give them one hell of a fight if they get into range.
d) By 1936 the treaty regime was dead. It was just that some people didn't recognise/accept this. Of course to have a larger or more modern fleet would have meant the regime being killed off or greatly modified - say by ending the 'holiday' with some limited production - but I think that would have been accepting the obvious and would have been beneficial to the western powers as part of the entire problem of the late 30's was because the allies waited too long before real rearmament starting.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 30, 2020 15:45:11 GMT
Agree that the 9 US with 14" guns were more parallel with the 15" ships Britain produced. They did have some shortcomings, most being coal fired originally and having a lower max elevation and hence range but the USN was able to remove those problems by extensive refits in most/all of them during the 1920's and 30's. Britain of course did get two more ships in Nelson and Rodney under the treaty, which were very good after some problems had been resolved but far more was needed to keep the RN battlefleet [and supporting construction industry] up to the sort of strength needed for any real crisis. [/div] The Standards were oil-fired. The older ships, the Wyomings and New Yorks were converted to oil firing. As an aside, the ships the USN sent to the UK in World War I to form the Sixth Battle Squadron (when it was reconstituted) were all coal-fired. Delaware, Florida, Arkansas, Wyoming, New York and Texas. The US didn't want to send oil-fired ships as it was felt there would be too much oil consumption in fleet operations given the RN already had some oil-fired capital ships. And the US had domestic access to good, hard anthracite coal from fields in the Eastern US. [/quote] The RN was a large navy on the strategic defensive, a position it was in for over a century by the time World War Two started. Japan started the war on the strategic offensive, but was built for the strategic defensive with the emphasis on the decisive battle (which planning steadily moved farther away from Home Waters as the interwar years passed). The USN was a large navy on the strategic offensive. It saw its mission as crossing the Pacific, fighting and defeating the Japanese and returning home. Those varied view impact choices... My thoughts, [/quote][/div]
OK thanks for the point on the standards. I knew some early 14" were coal fired and later refitted but relied too much on the memory. Apologies.
The RN was on the strategic defensive but for most of the last century it was happy to do this as it had the capacity to outclass just about every opponent when needed and also often had plans to take the war aggressively to any opponent. It no longer had this capacity in the late 30's due to the drastic run down of the fleet and production capacity. It could be argued that this would have occurred without either the 21 or 30 treaty but not sure I would agree with this. At least with regards to the prime OTL opponents or potential opponents i.e. Germany, Japan, Italy and possibly the Soviets.
Steve
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Sept 30, 2020 23:37:40 GMT
[/div] Steve
[/quote] Hi Steve, I was replying to Simon's thoughts on the 13.5in armed ships. With respect to the 13.5in ships against Nelson and Rodney, I'm not saying they are better, but possibly more useful in the late '20s most of the '30s. For example, for the bulk of that period, the RM dreadnoughts were just that: 12in armed, slow dreadnoughts. It was only with their extensive rebuild they became more useful. For that period, the four 13.5in armed ships could have been the Mediterranean Fleet's battleships, freeing up the 15in armed ships to serve elsewhere. I agree on the holiday extension. Regards, |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Sept 30, 2020 23:46:48 GMT
Steve, Apologies for what? I wasn't trying to correct you, I was corroborating you. You're correct, the older US BBs got converted from coal to oil firing. Wyoming became a training ship, but Arkansas, New York and Texas after First London were attached to the USN's scouting forces. They were Battleship Division 5 (BatDiv 5); the idea was to give the scouting forces a strong point (three battleships) to retreat to if they encountered serious opposition. They didn't get main battery elevation increased because they weren't supposed to be fighting enemy battleships; that was the job of the Standards in the battleline. The Standards did get main battery elevation increases, as you say, and their rebuilds also featured new turbines, mostly from the ships cancelled by Washington, but Nevada specifically got the geared turbines that had been retrofitted to North Dakota when the latter was scrapped.
Agreed.
Regards,
|
|
or even those subsidies had continued then Britain would have been able to manage things markedly better. The fact that war came earlier than just about anyone expected and the crisis over the fall of France did throw everything into a spin, especially with the drastically increased threat in the Atlantic but things wouldn't have been quite as bad with earlier production and/or greater capacity.
] matters.