lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,190 
Likes: 49,580
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 12, 2021 17:34:34 GMT
Cancelled Super-Dreadnought Battleships of WWII
Well as the tittle says, and following the YouTube clip below, what ships would have been built if World War II had been delayed or hadn't happened at all.
YouTube (The Cancelled Super-Dreadnought Battleships of WWII)
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Sept 13, 2021 15:49:03 GMT
Cancelled Super-Dreadnought Battleships of WWIIWell as the tittle says, and following the YouTube clip below, what ships would have been built if World War II had been delayed or hadn't happened at all. YouTube (The Cancelled Super-Dreadnought Battleships of WWII)
Interesting. I would suggest that, assuming tension means increased spending but no war until ~1944-45 that for Britain. a) Agree the old R class would go. Apart from some mods to Royal Oak they hadn't been significant upgraded since the early 20's. b) Agree that Hood and Repulse would see considerable upgrades as Renown had. c) For the Queens' Malaya and Barham had already seen the 1st significant upgrades in the early 30's so I suspect they wouldn't be upgraded again. Warspite have followed with a more advanced upgrade and as he says Queen Elizabeth and Valiant were getting still more advanced upgrades which were being completed pretty much as OTL WWII started. Hence I think the 1st 2 wouldn't be upgraded against and might be scrapped or in reserve by 1944. d) 5 KGV class treaty limited BBs would be produced as planned and happened OTL. e) 4 planned Lion's also to be completed.
f) With Vanguard I have seen it suggested that instead of a single ship there were plans for a number, using the 15" guns 1st from those in reserve from the conversion of the Oddities to CV and then from the R class as they were removed from service. Basically with upgraded 15" guns applied to totally new ships similar in size to the Lion class, i.e. ~40-45,000 tons. Possibly even more if say Barham and Malaya were retired as their guns would become available. They would be suitable in size to British facilities rather than having to considerably expanding capacity at major harbours and docks.
Of course the other issue he doesn't mention is how CVs develop. He does assume that come war ~1945 a lot of those BBs, including many new ones, would be highly vulnerable to air power and that is likely to be the case. However would some powers make this step earlier, or at least realise that carriers can supplant the battle fleet, at least in many circumstances. By 1939 the US, UK and Japan had the experience and were construction/planning sizeable numbers of new CVs. I doubt you would get the large numbers of Essex class that were produced OTL without a shooting war but probably some numbers of them and by 1945 successor designs might well be under development. Plus there would be for most of the players the even greater issue of maritime attack from land based a/c. Especially anyone planning to operate in the Europe/Med region or E Asia/SE Asia.
One other issue that comes to mind is whether the naval build ups do continued, despite the tension without a war. There are questions whether the European powers could have afforded their OTL plans for more than 3-4 years. Similarly would the US without an actual fighting war build up the massive fleet of OTL or possibly see a deeper move into isolation and with plans for less ships than being mention, with the assumption that no one can attack the US homeland and its overseas possessions are of at most secondary importance. Think the Philippines were due to become independent ~ 1944/45 wasn't it so depending on what happens with the Sino-Japanese war and if its still going on until 1945 with continued western and Soviet aid to the Chinese what sort of economic and military position would Japan be in?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,190
Likes: 49,580
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 13, 2021 15:55:55 GMT
Cancelled Super-Dreadnought Battleships of WWIIWell as the tittle says, and following the YouTube clip below, what ships would have been built if World War II had been delayed or hadn't happened at all. YouTube (The Cancelled Super-Dreadnought Battleships of WWII) Interesting. I would suggest that, assuming tension means increased spending but no war until ~1944-45 that for Britain. a) Agree the old R class would go. Apart from some mods to Royal Oak they hadn't been significant upgraded since the early 20's. b) Agree that Hood and Repulse would see considerable upgrades as Renown had. c) For the Queens' Malaya and Barham had already seen the 1st significant upgrades in the early 30's so I suspect they wouldn't be upgraded again. Warspite have followed with a more advanced upgrade and as he says Queen Elizabeth and Valiant were getting still more advanced upgrades which were being completed pretty much as OTL WWII started. Hence I think the 1st 2 wouldn't be upgraded against and might be scrapped or in reserve by 1944. d) 5 KGV class treaty limited BBs would be produced as planned and happened OTL. e) 4 planned Lion's also to be completed.
f) With Vanguard I have seen it suggested that instead of a single ship there were plans for a number, using the 15" guns 1st from those in reserve from the conversion of the Oddities to CV and then from the R class as they were removed from service. Basically with upgraded 15" guns applied to totally new ships similar in size to the Lion class, i.e. ~40-45,000 tons. Possibly even more if say Barham and Malaya were retired as their guns would become available. They would be suitable in size to British facilities rather than having to considerably expanding capacity at major harbours and docks. Of course the other issue he doesn't mention is how CVs develop. He does assume that come war ~1945 a lot of those BBs, including many new ones, would be highly vulnerable to air power and that is likely to be the case. However would some powers make this step earlier, or at least realise that carriers can supplant the battle fleet, at least in many circumstances. By 1939 the US, UK and Japan had the experience and were construction/planning sizeable numbers of new CVs. I doubt you would get the large numbers of Essex class that were produced OTL without a shooting war but probably some numbers of them and by 1945 successor designs might well be under development. Plus there would be for most of the players the even greater issue of maritime attack from land based a/c. Especially anyone planning to operate in the Europe/Med region or E Asia/SE Asia. One other issue that comes to mind is whether the naval build ups do continued, despite the tension without a war. There are questions whether the European powers could have afforded their OTL plans for more than 3-4 years. Similarly would the US without an actual fighting war build up the massive fleet of OTL or possibly see a deeper move into isolation and with plans for less ships than being mention, with the assumption that no one can attack the US homeland and its overseas possessions are of at most secondary importance. Think the Philippines were due to become independent ~ 1944/45 wasn't it so depending on what happens with the Sino-Japanese war and if its still going on until 1945 with continued western and Soviet aid to the Chinese what sort of economic and military position would Japan be in? Germany would not be able to build their Plan Z, the Navy needs are going to conflict with the Army need for steel. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Sept 13, 2021 16:33:34 GMT
Interesting. I would suggest that, assuming tension means increased spending but no war until ~1944-45 that for Britain. a) Agree the old R class would go. Apart from some mods to Royal Oak they hadn't been significant upgraded since the early 20's. b) Agree that Hood and Repulse would see considerable upgrades as Renown had. c) For the Queens' Malaya and Barham had already seen the 1st significant upgrades in the early 30's so I suspect they wouldn't be upgraded again. Warspite have followed with a more advanced upgrade and as he says Queen Elizabeth and Valiant were getting still more advanced upgrades which were being completed pretty much as OTL WWII started. Hence I think the 1st 2 wouldn't be upgraded against and might be scrapped or in reserve by 1944. d) 5 KGV class treaty limited BBs would be produced as planned and happened OTL. e) 4 planned Lion's also to be completed.
f) With Vanguard I have seen it suggested that instead of a single ship there were plans for a number, using the 15" guns 1st from those in reserve from the conversion of the Oddities to CV and then from the R class as they were removed from service. Basically with upgraded 15" guns applied to totally new ships similar in size to the Lion class, i.e. ~40-45,000 tons. Possibly even more if say Barham and Malaya were retired as their guns would become available. They would be suitable in size to British facilities rather than having to considerably expanding capacity at major harbours and docks. Of course the other issue he doesn't mention is how CVs develop. He does assume that come war ~1945 a lot of those BBs, including many new ones, would be highly vulnerable to air power and that is likely to be the case. However would some powers make this step earlier, or at least realise that carriers can supplant the battle fleet, at least in many circumstances. By 1939 the US, UK and Japan had the experience and were construction/planning sizeable numbers of new CVs. I doubt you would get the large numbers of Essex class that were produced OTL without a shooting war but probably some numbers of them and by 1945 successor designs might well be under development. Plus there would be for most of the players the even greater issue of maritime attack from land based a/c. Especially anyone planning to operate in the Europe/Med region or E Asia/SE Asia. One other issue that comes to mind is whether the naval build ups do continued, despite the tension without a war. There are questions whether the European powers could have afforded their OTL plans for more than 3-4 years. Similarly would the US without an actual fighting war build up the massive fleet of OTL or possibly see a deeper move into isolation and with plans for less ships than being mention, with the assumption that no one can attack the US homeland and its overseas possessions are of at most secondary importance. Think the Philippines were due to become independent ~ 1944/45 wasn't it so depending on what happens with the Sino-Japanese war and if its still going on until 1945 with continued western and Soviet aid to the Chinese what sort of economic and military position would Japan be in? Germany would not be able to build their Plan Z, the Navy needs are going to conflict with the Army need for steel.
Without war and the looting it enables Germany is going to face serious constraints on its military build up even without the Z plan so very likely there will be conflict between the three services. Ideally the KM made starts on a lot of the big ships because Hitler seemed to have a soft spot for them, but are unable to build more and build even less U boats.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,190
Likes: 49,580
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 13, 2021 16:39:15 GMT
Germany would not be able to build their Plan Z, the Navy needs are going to conflict with the Army need for steel. Without war and the looting it enables Germany is going to face serious constraints on its military build up even without the Z plan so very likely there will be conflict between the three services. Ideally the KM made starts on a lot of the big ships because Hitler seemed to have a soft spot for them, but are unable to build more and build even less U boats.
And i assume both Japan, United Kingdom and even the United States will hit the wall in what they can build in Battleships. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Sept 13, 2021 16:46:49 GMT
Without war and the looting it enables Germany is going to face serious constraints on its military build up even without the Z plan so very likely there will be conflict between the three services. Ideally the KM made starts on a lot of the big ships because Hitler seemed to have a soft spot for them, but are unable to build more and build even less U boats.
And i assume both Japan, United Kingdom and even the United States will hit the wall in what they can build in Battleships.
Definitely. The wall for the US may be as much political as economic/industrial but while there could well be more new BBs the overall size of the USN will be smaller in 1945 than OTL simply because there isn't a fighting war being waged.
Japan will have the issue of an ongoing and massive ulcer in China as well as competing demands between the army and navy.
Britain will also have issues and I think the primary aim with BBs was less expanding the fleet than replacing outdated units with far more powerful modern ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Sept 13, 2021 17:21:03 GMT
Britain would not have issues past a certain point, as there were plans to address the late 1930s bottlenecks of battleship production - gun pits and armour plants. The fleet replacement plans, detailed elsewhere on this forum, show that they weren't limited in their plans or forecasts until such time as war broke out. The decision to limit construction of the Lions and then curtail it altogether was entirely a function of fighting the main foe as they presented at that time. Even just building the initial 4 Lions does change the complexion of some analysis of British naval rearmament; the KGVs are consistently under rated due to the 14" armament.
All of the big three navies had the capacity to build what they ordered; it just depends on time. If the Japs took as long as necessary to get their Super Yamatos, then they would not just be facing the usual proposed array of fast USN BBs plus the Montanas but likely the next class on from that.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Sept 13, 2021 18:05:31 GMT
Britain would not have issues past a certain point, as there were plans to address the late 1930s bottlenecks of battleship production - gun pits and armour plants. The fleet replacement plans, detailed elsewhere on this forum, show that they weren't limited in their plans or forecasts until such time as war broke out. The decision to limit construction of the Lions and then curtail it altogether was entirely a function of fighting the main foe as they presented at that time. Even just building the initial 4 Lions does change the complexion of some analysis of British naval rearmament; the KGVs are consistently under rated due to the 14" armament. All of the big three navies had the capacity to build what they ordered; it just depends on time. If the Japs took as long as necessary to get their Super Yamatos, then they would not just be facing the usual proposed array of fast USN BBs plus the Montanas but likely the next class on from that.
Simon
I agree that production limitations, with those bottlenecks can be removed. However I have read sources that it and France were running through their foreign reserves at a very rapid rate even before WWII actually started. As such I think there are limits, in different areas, for all the powers. We could - and arguably should - have spent more inside Britain itself rather than investing in production capacity in the US which we have limited influence over. It would have meant lower production rates but being able to maintain them longer.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Sept 13, 2021 18:38:07 GMT
Steve,
Whilst all you have observed is true, it didn’t really apply to capital ship production. Once the bottlenecks were addressed, then they were produced entirely in Britain and not at a nation-breaking cost - 7.3 million for KGV and 11.5 million for Vanguard give 9 million or so for a Lion, paid over at least 4 years. Without a war and all the inherent costs, quite a bit can be done on a rearmament budget.
Simon
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Sept 14, 2021 10:58:34 GMT
Steve, Whilst all you have observed is true, it didn’t really apply to capital ship production. Once the bottlenecks were addressed, then they were produced entirely in Britain and not at a nation-breaking cost - 7.3 million for KGV and 11.5 million for Vanguard give 9 million or so for a Lion, paid over at least 4 years. Without a war and all the inherent costs, quite a bit can be done on a rearmament budget. Simon
True but the UK can't just build and operate battleships. Even for the navy there would need to be escorts to protect and scout for them, the growing capacity [and costs] of carriers and of course for trade protection. Then there is the army and RAF and assorted bases and operating costs for all this. Without a war Britain can maintain substantial military forces, although in all three services their a lot more expensive and tech intensive than in WWI so there are limits and also there are substantial opportunity costs as well. Even if the military build up end the depression there are a lot of other things Britain also needs to spend money on such as education, industrial support and technology, housing and transports etc. Which in the longer term are at least as important as done with any competence and they feed back into a more powerful economy that can support a larger military.
Also given that we're not going to war in TTL in 39 what's the POD. If its no occupation of the rump Czech state in Mar 39 which seems to the the trigger point that made the western powers realise that Hitler couldn't be trusted then is conscription re-introduced? If not then building a large army or even a larger navy and air force are going to be expensive in wages and salaries as the military is going to have to compete with other areas, including sections such as heavy industry which is getting a substantial boost from the build up.
If Britain decided to make the RN and possibly parts of the RAF the priority I could see it carrying out the sort of naval programme I mentioned, although probably the last QE class and the Nelsons might be on the verge of retirement or even gone by the time war comes. Forgot to mention in the list but uncertain whether the two Nelson's would receive massive upgrades, other than probably in terms of clapped out propulsion being replaced and updated AA and fire control systems. Their tough and hard hitting but too slow for likely battle with many new ships and with the RN producing their own new ships I suspect such might not be considered worthwhile. Even so and with the additional carriers that are likely to be built, all the accompanying escorts and cruisers the RN is likely facing a serious manpower pinch by the mid-40's which war would alleviate somewhat as nationalism and conscription play a role but it would still be a problem.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Sept 14, 2021 12:08:08 GMT
Steve,
Peacetime, even in heightened tensions, has fewer requirements on escorts and trade protection - indeed, it amounts to ordinary practice in most cases. The large expenditures from wartime are also absent - repair, fuel, quick and dirty construction compromises and base expansion. There is also a factor present moreso in the other two forces - wastage. The loss of so many planes, tanks, guns, vehicles and small arms every year added up, not to mention the losses to the Merchant Navy. None of that is around in peacetime.
To illustrate the example, let us look at what could be done with 5 years further build up:
Can Britain build a viable force in all three services in peacetime? Not really. It can produce a top line RAF and the biggest and largest RN in the world, but in the absence of war, there simply isn't the need for a mobilised army. Now, there can be a larger Army based on conscription and the build up of reserves, so that there are 15 regular and 10 ready reserve divisions waiting to go from the kickoff of any conflict, backed up by a doubled TA of 30 divisions in the wings, which would be an absolute game changer; this is based on the prewar and early war plan for a 55 division Army, but before applying the Dominions. It would need concerted spending and will over 1939-1944.
The Depression was largely gone in Britain by that point anyway, but additional defence spending would constrain growth in that intervening 5 years.
The type of fleet that could be afforded is the Two Power Standard of 1935/36: 20 capital ships, 15 aircraft carriers, 100 cruisers, 198 destroyers, 82 submarines and 226 lighter vessels. Working to plans, the total capital ships available would consist of the 5 QEs, Nelson, Rodney, Hood, Renown, Repulse, 5 KGVs, 5 "Vanguards" and 8 Lions; this would drop from 1945 with the retirement of the QEs. Adding at least 5 more destroyer flotillas, which would be quite necessary with more capital ships, isn't going to break the bank and can be accomodated by shipyards plus Dominion funding.
I'd postulate that, rather than scrap older weapons as they are replaced with new, a continually rearming British Empire would do a lot of transferring and storing to build up reserves. Older ships and whole destroyer flotillas would be laid up for manning by the Reserve Fleet and a very small escort/minesweeper/sloop/trawler force would actually be active in peacetime.
The largest boon of extra time is logistics. I've recently read a pair of decent tomes on Scribd about British Army logistics in WW1 and WW2 and both underscore the sheer scale of the logistical task.
Some annual operating costs from the Admiralty (Chatfield correspondence) 1938ish including amortised building cost.
Capital Ship 310,000 34,500 307,500 54,800 706,800 (NELSON Class) (100%)
Cruiser, Large 187,000 23,000 93,600 20,000 323,600 (45.7%)
Cruiser, Small 130,000 23,000 57,500 14,900 225,400 (31.8%)
Aircraft Carrier 255,000 414,000 202,500 22,500, 894,000, (36 A/C) (126.5%)
Aircraft Carrier 160,000 172,500 162,500 19,500, 514,500, (15 A/C) (72.7%)
Destroyer Flotilla 332,000 - 181,800 14,500, 528,300, (J. Class-8 Vessels) (75%)
Submarine (1000 tons) 39,800 - 25,700 (e) 65,500, (9.25%)
NOTES
(a) Maintenance covers the pay, victualling and miscellaneous
expenses of the personnel, naval stores, fuel and armament stores
consumed, and the cost of annual docking and repair.
(b) The figure for aircraft covers cost of replacing equipment
(assumed life-5 years) plus annual cost of maintenance of
personnel and material chargeable to Vote 4. It has been assumed
that Capital Ships would carry 3 aircraft and Cruisers 2 aircraft.
(c) This figure represents the capital cost of building the ship
divided by its 'life'. The lives assumed are:-
Capital Ships 26 years
Carriers 20 years
Cruisers 23 1/2 years
Destroyers 22 years
Submarines 14 years
(d) Large repairs take place about the ninth year of the ship's
life. In the case of a Capital Ship, a second large repair takes
place about the eighteenth year. The figure taken for this column
represents the aggregate cost of large repair(s) divided by the
vessel's life as scheduled under (c). The actual cost of large
repair is, for the most part, conjectural as little or no
experience has been gained of these vessels.
(e) Submarines are not subjected to 'Large Repairs'. The average
annual cost of all repairs and of periodic renewal of batteries is
reflected in column (a).
GENERAL
The 'Maintenance Costs' make no allowance for the non-effective
liability of the personnel borne, which does not mature until
years later. But if, as should be the case, it may be assumed that
the reduction of any particular vessel enables a consequent
reduction to be made in Vote A, there would be an eventual saving
to the non-effective votes.
A similar study done at the same time equated the cost of a battleship with something like 36 operational medium bombers.
Wartime carrier operating costs must have been mind boggling - the FAA had to order roughly 200 new airframes in order to maintain just 4 embarked operational squadrons (48 machines) for 18 months - 2 years. Peacetime ratio is less than half that. Add in the intricate, extensive and expensive training infrastructure."
The capital costs give prices of 7,995,000 pounds for a treaty battleship, 2,199,500 for a large cruiser, 1,351,500 for a small cruiser, 4,050,000 for a large aircraft carrier, 3,250,000 for a trade protection carrier, 3,999,600 for a destroyer flotilla and 359,800 for a 1000t submarine.
|
|
