1935 - The Royal Navy and the New Fleet Plan

[rip89]

I have just been reading Correlli Barnetts Engage the Enemy More Closely, In the chapter dealing with the pre war re-armanent period he mentions that there was a "New Fleet Plan" designed to give a fleet of the following strength
20 Battleships, 15 aircraft carriers, 100 cruisers, 198 destroyers and 82 submarines - this is not including convoy escort vessels, costal forces etc. He said this was not carried out due to Britains financial and industrail weakness.
However I have also read Niall Fergusson's War of the World in which he argues that Britain could have affored a much larger re-armanent drive and Britains industrial postion is not as weak as it seems.

Now my questions are this, can Britain undertake this plan, what effect on the war would a navy like this have and would we have different ship classes in place compared to OTL? 1935 being when this plan is adopted.

[Lord Brisbane]

In terms of capacity and infrastructure, there were plenty of idle yards as well as plenty of accumulated knowledge and a workforce available.

The question is really money and how potential rivals would react to such a program (since it could not be kept secret).

Also, who would the fleet be aimed at, given the political and social outlook of the period?

[rip89]

In terms of capacity and infrastructure, there were plenty of idle yards as well as plenty of accumulated knowledge and a workforce available.

The question is really money and how potential rivals would react to such a program (since it could not be kept secret).

Also, who would the fleet be aimed at, given the political and social outlook of the period?

It was a fleet to deter the Japanese whilst being able to defeat the KM in event of a war against Germany, it would also have allowed Britain to secure the Med. It was proposed to the cabinet a few times between 1935-1938. It was not rejected as a part of appeasment as essentialy its defensive in nature but to do with financial concerns.

[stevep]

In terms of capacity and infrastructure, there were plenty of idle yards as well as plenty of accumulated knowledge and a workforce available.

The question is really money and how potential rivals would react to such a program (since it could not be kept secret).

Also, who would the fleet be aimed at, given the political and social outlook of the period?

Lord Brisbane

In the short term, given the decline in capacity, especially since the depression, there were serious bottlenecks in some areas, especially for capital ships. Things like heavy armour and big guns but also smaller guns were a serious problem for the navy during the war given the demand for destroyers, escorts and secondary guns for the bigger ships. As such the programme might be affordable but would have taken some time, although could have been started earlier.

It also depends on what ships would be included. You could get 20BBs by simply completing the 5 KGV ships and keeping everything else in service [treating the Hood, Repulse and Renown as BBs] but the vast majority of this fleet would be slow, vulnerable and and worn out. Similarly the carriers could include Hermes, Unicorn and Eagle as well as the older fleet carriers, Furious, Glorious and Courageous.

On the other hand I did read one suggestion that the medium term plan was to complete the 5 KGV and 4 Lions then have about a dozen more ships which would be basically Vanguards. As new ships entered service then the old R class and then the Queens would be retired and their guns would be used. As such you could have 21 fast, powerful and well-protected ships although this could probably take until say the mid-40's without a war.

Steve

[Gridley]

I agree with stevep: it all depends on how you count.

The QE/Revenge class BB displaced about 30,000 tons, speed 23kts +/- 1, and carried eight 15"/42 guns each. Ten of these are available

The Nelson class BB displaced about 34,000 tons, speed 23kts, and carried nine 16"/45 guns each. They entered service in the late 1930s.

The KGV class BB displaced about 36,700 tons, speed 28.5kts, and in a bit of a regression carried ten 14"/45 guns. They entered service in the early 1940s.

The Lion class BB would have displaced about 42,500 tons, speed 28kts, and carried nine 16"/45 guns each. They would have entered service in the mid 1940s had they been completed.

That's quite a spread of capabilities. 20 Nelson/KGV/Lion BBs is out of the question (only 11 were even ordered), but ten of them and the ten QE/Revenge is probably doable by the end of the war.

"Carrier" is an amazingly broad term in the WWII era. In the USN, for example, displacement ranged from under 10,000 tons to 50,000, speed from 17kts to 33kts, aircraft carried from 20 to 130. If one counts light and escort carriers the RN achieved well over 15 IOTL. If you only count 'fleet' carriers (say 30+kts speed and airwing 50+) the RN only managed half a dozen IOTL. With extensive use of deck parking or some moderate design changes to OTL you could count four more. Fifteen is going to take a major effort.

The bottom line is if you set the bar at a fairly realistic level you could probably meet it at the expense of having less of something else than OTL (fewer aircraft for the RAF, fewer tanks for the Army, etc.).

[rip89]

I agree with stevep: it all depends on how you count.

The QE/Revenge class BB displaced about 30,000 tons, speed 23kts +/- 1, and carried eight 15"/42 guns each. Ten of these are available

The Nelson class BB displaced about 34,000 tons, speed 23kts, and carried nine 16"/45 guns each. They entered service in the late 1930s.

The KGV class BB displaced about 36,700 tons, speed 28.5kts, and in a bit of a regression carried ten 14"/45 guns. They entered service in the early 1940s.

The Lion class BB would have displaced about 42,500 tons, speed 28kts, and carried nine 16"/45 guns each. They would have entered service in the mid 1940s had they been completed.

That's quite a spread of capabilities. 20 Nelson/KGV/Lion BBs is out of the question (only 11 were even ordered), but ten of them and the ten QE/Revenge is probably doable by the end of the war.

"Carrier" is an amazingly broad term in the WWII era. In the USN, for example, displacement ranged from under 10,000 tons to 50,000, speed from 17kts to 33kts, aircraft carried from 20 to 130. If one counts light and escort carriers the RN achieved well over 15 IOTL. If you only count 'fleet' carriers (say 30+kts speed and airwing 50+) the RN only managed half a dozen IOTL. With extensive use of deck parking or some moderate design changes to OTL you could count four more. Fifteen is going to take a major effort.

The bottom line is if you set the bar at a fairly realistic level you could probably meet it at the expense of having less of something else than OTL (fewer aircraft for the RAF, fewer tanks for the Army, etc.).

Im assuming by carriers they meant fleet carriers as understood in 1935.

If this plan is carried out, or the attempt is carried out I think the idea would be to have 5 KGVs, 4 Lions (was this the number planned for?), 2 Nelsons, 5 modernised QEs, 3 Royal soverigns not as extensivly upgraded as I dont think they could be (I might be wrong) plus the Hood with a major upgrade (as I dont see the RN getting rid of the "mighty Hood" and yes I know shes a BC).

You would see the Renown class and Two Royal Soverign class removed from service. Would the two renown class be given too Canada or Australia? However these ships would be replaced on a 1 for 1 basis too keep up numbers.

With Carriers 2 x Ark Royals 6 x Illustrious (as OTL) plus the legacy carriers seems a reasonable plan.

Now assuming this plan is agreed Jan - March 1935, how far advanced would it be by sept 39 and how long to complete it - would mid 42 be reasonable?

[Gridley]

4 Lions (was this the number planned for?)

Yes, it was.


With Carriers 2 x Ark Royals 6 x Illustrious (as OTL) plus the legacy carriers seems a reasonable plan. That's eight - only four of the legacy ships really count (Ark Royal and the three Courageous/Furious class); the rest are too slow (Eagle), too small (Hermes), or both (Argus). So you need to build five more carriers than OTL.

Now assuming this plan is agreed Jan - March 1935, how far advanced would it be by sept 39 and how long to complete it - would mid 42 be reasonable?If you push it you can probably get the first two of both the KGV and added Ark Royal class in commission by Sep 39. Two more KGV and three or so Illustrious class during 1940 and the balance of 1939.

No way the plan is done by mid 1942 - that's not only building five more carriers, that's pushing two more ahead two years and adding the four Lions to boot. I don't think the Empire even has enough building slips to do that.

1945 is the earliest I can see all the capital ships being finished.

Note IOTL the last KGV (HMS Howe) commissioned 8/29/42 and the last Illustrious-Implacable (HMS Implacable) commissioned on 8/28/44. Only one modified Lion was commissioned, and that was in 1946.

Edit: fixed a typo.

[rip89]

Yes, it was.

That's eight - only four of the legacy ships really count (Ark Royal and the three Courageous/Furious class); the rest are too slow (Eagle), too small (Hermes), or both (Argus). So you need to build five more carriers than OTL.

If you push it you can probably get the first two of both the KGV and added Ark Royal class in commission by Sep 39. Two more KGV and three or so Illustrious class during 1940 and the balance of 1939.

No way the plan is done by mid 1942 - that's not only building five more carriers, that's pushing two more ahead two years and adding the four Lions to boot. I don't think the Empire even has enough building slips to do that.

1945 is the earliest I can see all the capital ships being finished.

Note IOTL the last KGV (HMS Howe) commissioned 8/29/42 and the last Illustrious-Implacable (HMS Implacable) commissioned on 8/28/44. Only one modified Lion was commissioned, and that was in 1946.

Edit: fixed a typo.

Thanks for the info Gridley.

In OTL ships construction was delayed due to the war ie repairing merchant ships, more escorts, if this plan is started 2 years earlier than OTL re armanet plan some of the ships like Howe will be completed earlier, but yes I see the Lion class being delayed by the war.

If you noticed I did say that prehaps they might order 1 possibly 2 more ark royal class. would they order more illustious class probably would they be finished though?

On a side note I think would the Hermes, Eagle etc would make good escort carriers.

[Gridley]

If you noticed I did say that prehaps they might order 1 possibly 2 more ark royal class. would they order more illustious class probably would they be finished though?


Two more Ark Royal class seems perfectly reasonable (I was counting them in the 'five more' needed). I'd imagine three more Illustrious class (Implacable sub class, or even yet another sub class of their own) would be the roundouts. If you start in 1935 you could probably squeeze their commissioning in by the end of 1945, though they wouldn't see much if any combat.

This also assumes the RN still loses a bunch of carriers early in the war. The last of the Illustrious class won't be a priority unless they're needed to replace losses.

[stevep]

Gridley

In general agreement but a couple of niggle points

I agree with stevep: it all depends on how you count.

The Nelson class BB displaced about 34,000 tons, speed 23kts, and carried nine 16"/45 guns each. They entered service in the late 1930s.


They actually entered service 1926/27 if I remember rightly. Delayed a bit to spread out the construction.

Only one modified Lion was commissioned, and that was in 1946.


I think you mean the Vanguard here, which wasn't a modified Lion. Different design with 8x15" guns in twin turrets as compared to the 9x16" in triples planned for the Lions.

One other factor which could speed up construction. Go for 9x14" in the KGV in triple turrets rather than the 12X14" - dropping to 10X14". The quad turrets had considerable problems and had to be designed from scratch, then when they realised three would put the ship over the treaty limits they wasted the best part of a year designing a twin turret to cut the weight. Going for three triples from the start would have saved a lot of problems and probably got them in service at least a year earlier, which could have had a knock on effect on the other ships.

Steve

[rip89]

Ok I have made a desicion I am going to try to make my first t/l based on this plan being adopted, so if I ask alot of questions on this thread over the next few days I apologise. It will take me a while to get it started though thanks to a little thing called work.

Right first two questions.

Whats a reasonable time for different classes of ships to be constructed? I was thinking something like like 2-3 years for BBs and CVs dont have a clue about cruisers and destroyers though.

How long does it take to design a ship?

Also any advice on writing a t/l?

[stevep]

rip89

It partly depends on how similar the design is to anything the country has done in the recent past and the capabilities of the shipyards. For instance as I said the KGV's could probably have been completed a year earlier.

Checking one of my source books:
KGV BB - laid down 1-1-37 completed 1-10-40 - this may have been delayed a little by the start of the war but say 2.5-3 years, possibly less with some experience built up.

Norfolk CAs - laid down 1927, completed 1930 [doesn't break it down any further unfortunately].

Exeter CA - ld 1-8-28, com 21-7-31

Dido CL - 1st group, ld 36-39, com 40-42

Town CL - 3 sub types, about 2.5-3 years between ld and com.

DDs - Those could probably be completed in about a year, less in the well equipped US yards once they got fully geared up.

Hope they give some information. Would say they could be done a bit faster with a little organisation but Britain, after the long building holiday and the crunch of the depression suffered a lot of bottlenecks because so much skill and capacity had been lost. That was one reason why you could see DDs and DEs with 4", 4.5", 4.7" and 5" guns in different classes simply because there wasn't the capacity any longer to build enough of any single type. [Then of course we had the 5.25" twin DP secondaries used on the new capital ships!]. All in all rather a logistical mess.

Basically probably with the KGV Britain laid down 2 in spring 37 and three in spring 38, which coupled with carrier construction at the same time probably suggests that not more than 3-4 capital ships total a year. Probably go with the smaller number earlier on.

When war breaks out this will probably slow down things as supply is disrupted and also you have the problems of bombing and blackouts. Especially when France falls, presuming as OTL.

If you go with the Vanguard option, since the guns only have to be modified rather than built from scratch that might speed things up a bit although unless effort is put into increasing the capacity for heavy armour production that will also be a factor.

I can't actually see the RN completing the empire programme unless war doesn't occur, which seems rather unlikely. Once it does you probably get the Lions [or whatever is in early stages of construction] frozen and later cancelled and once the strength of modern a/c is realised the value of new BBs are limited.

Anyway hope this helps. If you're not clear in the above ld and com are abbreviation for laid down and completed and I'm using British dd-mm-yy dates.

I can't see any ships prior to the Hood, which was due for an extensive refit, being kept for long due to the need for higher speed and more modern armour design. Possibly not even the Nelson & Rodney in the longer term. Possibly cancel the QE refits after the POD to free up capacity and expect them to be replaced in fairly short order.

Steve


Ok I have made a desicion I am going to try to make my first t/l based on this plan being adopted, so if I ask alot of questions on this thread over the next few days I apologise. It will take me a while to get it started though thanks to a little thing called work.

Right first two questions.

Whats a reasonable time for different classes of ships to be constructed? I was thinking something like like 2-3 years for BBs and CVs dont have a clue about cruisers and destroyers though.

How long does it take to design a ship?

Also any advice on writing a t/l?

[Astrodragon]

The original plan had capital ships target reached by 1944, cruisers and destroyers by about 1948.
There were limits as to how fast they could build capital ships and carriers - about 2 1/2 BB's a year, and probably a couple of fleet carriers (they needed big slips)

In order to build the big ships ay faster, they needed more armour production and more gun pits, although it was thought they could have squeesed up to 3 a year.
There were also bottlenecks in smaller gun mountings and things like FC equipment, so they ptrobably would have stuck at the original 'New Standard Fleet' plan.

They were actually looking at 18 carriers (3 would be maintained without air groups), and possible trade protection carriers as well (subject to slip availability).

It was a massive building program by any standards, only the US 2 ocean navy program of 1940 was bigger, and that not by much!!

[Riain]

You might be well served to read Tony Williams's "The Forsight War", which there are large excerpts available for free online. While his premise is time travel he has a good grasp of what was possible in Britain in the 30s. He suggests that the 5 R class BBs be scrapped and 6 new BBs built along the lines of the Vangaurd, but IOTL that's probably impossible.

One way of opening up bottlenecks would be the rebuilding of the 11 good WW1 capital ships, the 5 QEs, 2 R BCs and the Hood, and the 3 fast carriers first.

[Astrodragon]

Regarding starting it earlier;

BB start is set by teh 1936 treaty, and in any case they are in teh process of ramping up armour production.

Carriers could be started earlier, they could have built 2 fleets a year from 1935 (which due to the way they funded normally means a 1936 lay down for completion in 1939)

Cruisers were being built at 5-7 a year (including the Dido's), but again they cant up the build rate until teh new treaty requiremenst kick in

Destroyers they certainly had the capacity to increase, but again theer are treaty issues. they were building 2 flotillas a year from 1937, they could have doubled that.

Subs are a bit morre tricky, slips arent an issue but its a very specialised job, but they could have built more.

Its also worth noting that building was delayed at start due to the necessity of informing other countries of the intended build/retirement program for the coming year.

[sharlin]

Whilst plausable the UK's government was a stickler for treaties, heck we build the Nelson and Rodney light compaired to the requirements of the Washington treaty, the KGVs were armed with 14 inch guns as per treaty obligations even though the USN went ffff that and went for 16 inch guns whilst the Italians and French built 15 inch gunned ships.

The guns on the KGV could not be altered because it would put a considerable delay on the construction of the ships, as guns are the hardest part to make. Even a delay of a year would have meant we would have been building the KGV's when we was possibly going to be at war with Germany.

[Riain]

Subs are a bit morre tricky, slips arent an issue but its a very specialised job, but they could have built more.


The T class were hobbled by the treaties. They were 300t smaller than they could/should have been in order to build more under the limits but this came at the expense of installed power so they were a good 4kt slower than they should have been.

[rip89]

Thanks for the info guys.

The older ships will be getting an upgrade, including the Renowns (which I have a soft spot for), though the R class will be less comprehensive 1. because they will be the first to go and 2. because they wont be seen as first line ships in war planning ie mainly to escort convoys.

Im going to do a bit of research into the various treatys, but a quick question if one signatory to a treaty broke it were they null and void? If I remember correctly hadnt Japan already broken them? (I think I might have an idea for a POD and this is part of it).

This wont be a Britwank by any means (after all battleships are not amphibious! and to beat Germany you need to beat their army) but the war will go better for the RN.

[rip89]

The original plan had capital ships target reached by 1944, cruisers and destroyers by about 1948.
There were limits as to how fast they could build capital ships and carriers - about 2 1/2 BB's a year, and probably a couple of fleet carriers (they needed big slips)

In order to build the big ships ay faster, they needed more armour production and more gun pits, although it was thought they could have squeesed up to 3 a year.
There were also bottlenecks in smaller gun mountings and things like FC equipment, so they ptrobably would have stuck at the original 'New Standard Fleet' plan.

They were actually looking at 18 carriers (3 would be maintained without air groups), and possible trade protection carriers as well (subject to slip availability).

It was a massive building program by any standards, only the US 2 ocean navy program of 1940 was bigger, and that not by much!!

Is their something on line about the new fleet plan? Or did you read about it in a book as the only place I have read about it is in the book I mentioned earlier and it was a very brief mention

[sharlin]

I belive that when the treaties were broke in I think 35/36 the RN was too far along with the development of the KGV's to be unable to change them to take bigger weapons.

[stevep]

I belive that when the treaties were broke in I think 35/36 the RN was too far along with the development of the KGV's to be unable to change them to take bigger weapons.

sharlin, rip

Strictly speaking Japan didn't so much break the treaty as say it wouldn't be renewing it. This I believe was too late for the KGV's to have larger guns but the fact the Japanese didn't attend the 1936 London Treaty when the 14" limit was agreed on [Checking on Wiki it was only Britain, the US and France in attendance]. The US insisted on an escalation clause allowing larger ships and 16" guns if neither Japan or Italy had signed the treaty by 1-4-37, which of course neither did.

Just checking Wiki for 35 and on 16-3-35 it says Hitler announced German rearmament, breaching the Versailles treaty. That could have been used as an argument not to renew the treaty. Instead on 18-6-35 Britain signed a treaty with Germany relating to naval armaments!:(

One thing that could be done, even before any treaty deadline, would have been investment in certain key areas that had declined. Such as gun pits and heavy armour production. Also if the navy had realised how many small guns they would need preferably pick a DP gun design and calibre and increase capacity to produce that. Those would enable things to move faster once the treaty is withdrawn. Could still go with the KGV design, preferably with 9x14", as the 1st class to allow production a bit earlier if the 36 treaty goes as OTL. [Ideally be able to use Hitler's rearmament as a loophole, especially once it was realised that Japan and Italy weren't going to attend a new conference and you could even get construction started a bit earlier.

I wouldn't do more than the most minimum work with the R's as their too old, small and slow. The Queens are a bit older but bigger, which gives more room for improvement but even so would be tempted to bypass them and get new construction built, other than what modifications were already under way for them by this time. Definitely update both Repulse and Renown, only one got done OTL and also the Hood, as they have the size to make it useful and the speed to be a lot more valuable in a new war.

Steve

[rip89]

In this scenario with a large number of carriers on order/under construction I can see the OTL inskip award occuring earlier ie 1935 instead of 1937 and you are going to see a new sea lord (fith sea lord I believe) added to the admilraty board as the head of naval aviation. Though like in OTL land based marittime avation will remain with the RAF.

Aircraft entering service from 1937 Swordfish - TSR role, Skua - Dive Bomber, Sea Gladiator - Fighter. Note the skua will only be a dive bomber.

Aircraft entering service 39/40 Sea Henley- Dive Bomber, Sea Hurricane Fighter. Note the RN will take over the Henley project even though the RAF will abandon it. 2 questons could the henley have been modified as a Torpedo bomber, and if not were there any plans for a modern torpedo bomber in this period to replace the swordfish (apart from the Albacore?). Also the abortion that was the Roc is not going to exist.

Thoughts on the above?

[Gridley]

Gridley

In general agreement but a couple of niggle points


Niggles accepted; that's what I get for typing in haste. :-)


Im going to do a bit of research into the various treatys, but a quick question if one signatory to a treaty broke it were they null and void? If I remember correctly hadnt Japan already broken them? (I think I might have an idea for a POD and this is part of it).


The PoD should probably be a different treaty structure than OTL, with the British not subject to it from ~1936 on.

By starting in 1935/1936 you have a nice long ramp up which will pay dividends in shortened construction times later on. Take a look at GB vs. US mid-war construction times and you'll see what I mean - the US could finish larger, more capable ships months sooner than GB.

Design time probably isn't an issue here; the treaty limits were a PAIN to design around, and most nations had designs they never built. Add in just adding a few more hulls to each class (no added design time) and that really won't be a constraint.

With no treaty from 1936 on (presumably planning for that lapse starts well beforehand), GB might have fewer heavy cruisers (as those were somewhat a treaty artifact). The RN much preferred light cruisers anyway judging by OTL construction, and those take less time, money, and resources. That alone might be enough to get you to the 100 cruiser target by 1945 (92 cruisers IOTL, counting RAN, RCN, etc as well as active ships from WWI) if you pick smaller CLs to replace the CAs.

[Dilvish]

Thanks for the info guys.

The older ships will be getting an upgrade, including the Renowns (which I have a soft spot for), though the R class will be less comprehensive 1. because they will be the first to go and 2. because they wont be seen as first line ships in war planning ie mainly to escort convoys.

Im going to do a bit of research into the various treatys, but a quick question if one signatory to a treaty broke it were they null and void? If I remember correctly hadnt Japan already broken them? (I think I might have an idea for a POD and this is part of it).

This wont be a Britwank by any means (after all battleships are not amphibious! and to beat Germany you need to beat their army) but the war will go better for the RN.

Rip89,

The neverwere warships forum will be a big resource for you. http://www.phpbbplanet.com/warshipprojects You'll have to register to view the forum, but it is worth it. Dig through the Royal Navy part of the forum; you'll find lots of information there.

As a teaser, "a plan for fourteen carriers by 1943" thread has these two posts by Red Admiral:

Well, you've actually got 5 KGVs, 8 Lions and 5 Vanguard in the Tentative Fleet Plan which gives 18 new battleships.

and:

For the Tentative Fleet plan, the following ships were planned.
1936 1 fleet carrier, 1 trade protection carrier
1937 1 fleet carrier, 1 trade protection carrier
1938 1 fleet carrier, 1 trade protection carrier
1939 1 fleet carrier, 1 trade protection carrier
1940 1 fleet carrier, 1 trade protection carrier
1941 1 fleet carrier
1942 1 fleet carrier
1943 No carrier construction this year
1944 1 fleet carrier

Along with Ark Royal this makes a total of 14 ships as all the earlier carriers would eventually be scrapped.

Designs for the ships themselves are harder. The trade protection carrier died in 1937/38 which changed the plan a bit. Really, I'd imagine the historical development of Illustrious x 3, Indomitable and Impacable x 2 with the later ships being similar to Audacious.

dilvish
(I'm dracos over there)

[David S Poepoe]

Could still go with the KGV design, preferably with 9x14", as the 1st class to allow production a bit earlier if the 36 treaty goes as OTL.

A good suggestion, but I would consider keeping the KGV with 12-14in guns. Historically, the KGV was suppose to be just a two ship class along with the Prince of Wales. The following class would have been the Duke of York, with the Anson and Howe, same hulls etc., but mounting 9-16in guns. Delays with the twin turrets threw everything off and the two classes were combined into one.

[Dupplin Muir]

Personally, I'd have announced the KGV's as 14" ships with three triple turrents (as Stevep suggested) but design them so that they can take 15" guns. If everyone renews the treaty then they get the 14", but if it lapses, you could just fit the 15" - turrets were the main problem rather than the guns.

[PMN1]

The problem was given the resources, the UK couldn't develop two gun sizes at the same time and get the ships into the water in the time required.

[stevep]

A good suggestion, but I would consider keeping the KGV with 12-14in guns. Historically, the KGV was suppose to be just a two ship class along with the Prince of Wales. The following class would have been the Duke of York, with the Anson and Howe, same hulls etc., but mounting 9-16in guns. Delays with the twin turrets threw everything off and the two classes were combined into one.

David

Do you mean changing something else to fit within treaty limits or planning on exceeding them in the expectation that the treaty won't be renewed.

Steve

[Gridley]

The problem was given the resources, the UK couldn't develop two gun sizes at the same time and get the ships into the water in the time required.

They don't need any R&D; they've got a good 15" gun on the QE and Revenge classes already.

[PMN1]

They don't need any R&D; they've got a good 15" gun on the QE and Revenge classes already.

But its a twin so they have to accept either 6 guns or go to with 8 and accept having to protect a longer ship.

Its telling that despite having the MkI, the MkII was proposed which would have had different construction method.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-45_mk2.htm

Basically what you need is for the Admiralty to stick to its 20 September 1935 decision to go for 3 triple 15" and 29kts and not be swayed by news in October that the US might agree to 14" providing the Japanese did.

[Gridley]

But its a twin so they have to accept either 6 guns or go to with 8 and accept having to protect a longer ship.

Its telling that despite having the MkI, the MkII was proposed which would have had different construction method.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-45_mk2.htm

Basically what you need is for the Admiralty to stick to its 20 September 1935 decision to go for 3 triple 15" and 29kts and not be swayed by news in October that the US might agree to 14" providing the Japanese did.

As, I see what you're getting at. Fair enough.

Agreed that 3x3 15" and 29kts as a standard would have made for a much better battleline than OTL.

[David S Poepoe]

David

Do you mean changing something else to fit within treaty limits or planning on exceeding them in the expectation that the treaty won't be renewed.

Steve

The 16in gunned Duke of York class would have been the equivalent to the USS North Carolina and the preceeding KGV would have been the original design of the North Carolina with 14in guns. The development of the twin turret had an unfortunate ripple effect of majorly delaying the plans for a triple turret and the accompanying 16in gun.

[stevep]

The 16in gunned Duke of York class would have been the equivalent to the USS North Carolina and the preceeding KGV would have been the original design of the North Carolina with 14in guns. The development of the twin turret had an unfortunate ripple effect of majorly delaying the plans for a triple turret and the accompanying 16in gun.

David

What I meant was that the original design, with 12x14" was changed to 10x14" because it was calculated that weight needed to be saved to keep without treaty limits [i.e. 35kton]. Rather than cut down on speed or armour the admiralty cropped two guns from the design.

Hence either they cut something else or they decide that they will design outside the treaty limits. I was asking which you were proposing or do you know of a 3rd option?

Steve

[David S Poepoe]

David

What I meant was that the original design, with 12x14" was changed to 10x14" because it was calculated that weight needed to be saved to keep without treaty limits [i.e. 35kton]. Rather than cut down on speed or armour the admiralty cropped two guns from the design.

Hence either they cut something else or they decide that they will design outside the treaty limits. I was asking which you were proposing or do you know of a 3rd option?

Steve

Sorry about that. The cropping you mentioned as originally done in order to increase armour, so the armour would be left as first designed.

[PMN1]

After the decision to go for 14", the villain here is the 5.25", do away with that and you can have 3 quad 14"...and the 14" doesn't seem to have come up wanting when it was used.

[rip89]

Ok i've been doing some digging around and this was a proposal submitted to the treasury for a buiding program in 1937 OTL. The last ships were to be laid down with the 1945 estimates so in our timeline you would be looking at 1948 as the compeltion date. If- as I am going to do - a roughly similar plan is accepted in 1935 the plan is to be completed in 1946. Now of course not all these ships are going to be finished.

18 battleships, 8 fleet carriers, 5 trade protection carriers, 8 8inch heavy, 37 6in heavy and 18 light cuisers plus 114 destroyers (24 tribals, 90 J class)

My idea for the plan would have the following battleships planned for.
20 Battleships 2 x Nelsons, 10 x KGVs/Lions and 8 x Vanguards. The vanguards to be armed with 15in guns from scrapped R class/QE class. I was thinking of going for 9 x 16in for the KGVs from the start as this would reduce the ammo types being produced and match what was being built in foreign navys.

Battle cruisers 1 x Hood and 2 x Renown all modernised.

10 x Fleet Carriers 2 x Ark royals 6 x Illustrious + 2 modernised Courageous class. I am going to have the first 4 Illustrious built to OTL Indomitable spec however.

7 x Trade protection carriers Hermes, Eagle + 5 New build.

Thoughts anyone? Also any body know what were the plans for the trade protection carriers?

[HMS Warspite]

The plan is still a bit too ambitious and not very realistic, given the problems likely to be encountered in both developping and building all new units.

One of the main problems was that the needed amount of high quality armor plating was limmited to a maximum each year, simply because of technical and chemical issues. All the new battleships and the carriers needed the strongest type of face hardened armor, which was not available in the needed quantities in the OTL, when a more modest building program was used, so will likely not be here as well. Some new ships might not get the armor at all when commissioned, simply because it was not build yet, therfore making these ship(s) pretty insignificant before commission already.

The refittingprogram for the still well designed Queen Elisabeth class was not so bad after all, as they were still stronger than most ships any opposition could mount against them, while relatively modular enough to modernise them completely, rather than the more cramped and smaller Royal Sovereign class, which lacked the internal volume to be treated simmilarly. For the Queen Elisabeth Class refit the armro was not needed to be constructed, as most was already installed. Only the horizontal armor was strongly strengthened, but with the relatively softer non cemeted type, which was more readily available than the cemeted type.

[rip89]

The plan is still a bit too ambitious and not very realistic, given the problems likely to be encountered in both developping and building all new units.

One of the main problems was that the needed amount of high quality armor plating was limmited to a maximum each year, simply because of technical and chemical issues. All the new battleships and the carriers needed the strongest type of face hardened armor, which was not available in the needed quantities in the OTL, when a more modest building program was used, so will likely not be here as well. Some new ships might not get the armor at all when commissioned, simply because it was not build yet, therfore making these ship(s) pretty insignificant before commission already.

The refittingprogram for the still well designed Queen Elisabeth class was not so bad after all, as they were still stronger than most ships any opposition could mount against them, while relatively modular enough to modernise them completely, rather than the more cramped and smaller Royal Sovereign class, which lacked the internal volume to be treated simmilarly. For the Queen Elisabeth Class refit the armro was not needed to be constructed, as most was already installed. Only the horizontal armor was strongly strengthened, but with the relatively softer non cemeted type, which was more readily available than the cemeted type.

Hmm any way to get around the armour problem? Would some investment by the government over say a 5 year period increase production on this? If the R class are scrapped maybe there armour could be used?

Also the program is started earlier than OTL re armanet so this would help and I did say not all will get built, due to war prioritys etc. In terms of aircraft carriers its actually not that far off what was built ie 1 extra ark royal.

The trade protection carriers could be built to merchant ship standards, I am actualy visulising these being like a early colossus class, ie only a light AA gun armament, no significant armour just anti torpedo protection, a speed of around 28 knots and a 30 -40 aircraft capacity. After all they will not (as envisaged by planners) be working in high air threat areas and will mainly be providing ASW coverage for convoys. This would also free up naval dockyards for other work.

[HMS Warspite]

Hmm any way to get around the armour problem? Would some investment by the government over say a 5 year period increase production on this? If the R class are scrapped maybe there armour could be used?

Also the program is started earlier than OTL re armanet so this would help and I did say not all will get built, due to war prioritys etc. In terms of aircraft carriers its actually not that far off what was built ie 1 extra ark royal.

The trade protection carriers could be built to merchant ship standards, I am actualy visulising these being like a early colossus class, ie only a light AA gun armament, no significant armour just anti torpedo protection, a speed of around 28 knots and a 30 -40 aircraft capacity. After all they will not (as envisaged by planners) be working in high air threat areas and will mainly be providing ASW coverage for convoys. This would also free up naval dockyards for other work.


The sheer weight of the needed armor plating is more than the scrapped ships can deliver, so it will remain a problem enyway. Building new steelplants might get you a bit more of the needed buildingmaterial, but building new plants from scratch will take decades normally, so it is not something for short term thinking. The basical problem will remain the same, a shortage of high quality cemented armored steelplates.

The tradeprotection carriers indeed can be build in merchant yards, as in the OTL happened with the CVL's of Majestic and Colosus classes, although my suggestion is to have the CVE type prevail, as this as a more cheaper and quicker to build type, more than well suited for the intended role. Simply use existing tankers as a base and convert them, while some tankers, or larger merchants on stock can be addapted while being build.

Further more, the Destroyer question is more urgent, as the JKN type was a bit too expensive to be produced in large numbers, being a bit too complex. The Warprogram ships of the O-Ca classes was better suited for this, as they did away the more complex twin mounting and installed more simple singel shielded guns, on a slightly smaller and cheaper hull, while the Hunt Class DE was also a succes for the more secondary taskes, not requireing a true destroyer force. If numbers are needed, focus on the sort of vessels easily build, rather than the fewer, more complex ones (such as the Affridi (=Tribal) class).

For cruisers, the heavy cruiser was a type not wanted by the Royal Navy and build only to have something equal at least to the opposition. The light cruiser was the type needed, as this was the more multi purpose ship needed for the typical British cruisermissions. So with just about the ones build in the OTL, the line of heavy cruisers was to be stopped and all attention would go to the more useful light cruiser, both large and smaller ones, as the later was primarily intended for the AA role especially in the Mediteranean Sea. The large cruisers would be the ones on oversea stations for tradeprotection mainly, while the smaller ones would support the fleet in action.

[Astrodragon]

18 BB's in 10 years is easiuly inside the armour availability.

In 1938 the building plan was 2 1/2 BB a year, and with an increase in the armour capability could have been raised to 3/year.
After that, other issues such as guns and FC equipment get to be the bottlenecks
But starting in 35 and ending in 45 1.8BB a year is no trouble, and they would be able to build the armourced carriers and cruisers as well.

However I think they would also replace all the early, experimental carriers by then, they will be getting too old and worn out - although its possible they may keep Courageous/Glorious as a training carrier, although the plans did include one as well as the other carriers.

Depending on what other contries are doing they may build extra, probably larger, fleet carriers, and quite possibly more Lion types that BC's, allowing the QE class to be in reserve.

[HMS Warspite]

18 BB's in 10 years is easiuly inside the armour availability.

In 1938 the building plan was 2 1/2 BB a year, and with an increase in the armour capability could have been raised to 3/year.
After that, other issues such as guns and FC equipment get to be the bottlenecks
But starting in 35 and ending in 45 1.8BB a year is no trouble, and they would be able to build the armourced carriers and cruisers as well.

However I think they would also replace all the early, experimental carriers by then, they will be getting too old and worn out - although its possible they may keep Courageous/Glorious as a training carrier, although the plans did include one as well as the other carriers.

Depending on what other contries are doing they may build extra, probably larger, fleet carriers, and quite possibly more Lion types that BC's, allowing the QE class to be in reserve.


The armor question is to be seen against other requirements as well, sicne armored vehicles too need it, as do aircraft in a lesser amount (Pilot seat armor in the Spitfire and Hurricane) The industrial output in the UK for the high quality facehardened cemented armor was facing a shortage in the late 30's as the buildign of both battleships and aircraft carriers was in full production by then, so a vast quantity of a slightly lesser Chechoslowakian Cemented Armor was purchased to cope with the shortage. This armor was mainly put into HMS Formidable and Indomitable as flightdeck armor, while the more superior British cemented armor was put into the King George V class battleships.

[merlin]

Aircraft entering service from 1937 Swordfish - TSR role, Skua - Dive Bomber, Sea Gladiator - Fighter. Note the skua will only be a dive bomber.
Aircraft entering service 39/40 Sea Henley- Dive Bomber, Sea Hurricane Fighter. Note the RN will take over the Henley project even though the RAF will abandon it. 2 questons could the henley have been modified as a Torpedo bomber, and if not were there any plans for a modern torpedo bomber in this period to replace the swordfish (apart from the Albacore?). Also the abortion that was the Roc is not going to exist.

I think the Skua still gets secondary 'fighter' duties - longer range than the Glad. But yes, is replaced by the Sea Henley - with wing-guns - as a FDB; this keeps the Fulmar away or with very limited no's. But rather than go with the 8 x 0.303" example of the RAF it jumps to cannon, via the Boulton-Paul P.88a (Hercules) with 4 x 20 mm cannon. As the engine power increases, the aircraft gradually replaces the Sea Henley - with its ability to carry bombs.
Blackburn & Fairey vie with each other to design a replacement TB - with either Hercules, Deerhound or Centaurus engine - analogue to Spearfish only earlier.

[Hyperbolus]

OTL the extra armor needed to complete the late 1930's fleet carriers and Fiji class cruisers was ordered from Czechoslovakia* and shipped just before the nazi occupation. So the New Fleet Plan is plausible if there's no/ much smaller WWII in Europe. The US was not a viable source of armor because it had its own fleet expansion.
*Nelson to Vanguard-DK Brown, a good source for what the RN did and did not build for WWII

[Dilvish]

Rip,
I don't have much on the trade protection carriers. The design started near 14,500 tons with 4 5.25" guns, 15 aircraft, and 27-28 knot speed. Rose to around 17,000 tons before shrinking to 11,000 tons.

Later on there was a short-lived "aircraft destroyer" idea. A small carrier of 8,350 tons, 4 5" guns, 12 aircraft, 31-32 knots.

(the above is from Fleets of World War II, by Richard Worth)

[rip89]

OTL the extra armor needed to complete the late 1930's fleet carriers and Fiji class cruisers was ordered from Czechoslovakia* and shipped just before the nazi occupation. So the New Fleet Plan is plausible if there's no/ much smaller WWII in Europe. The US was not a viable source of armor because it had its own fleet expansion.
*Nelson to Vanguard-DK Brown, a good source for what the RN did and did not build for WWII

Hmm so if they needed more they could have orderd in bulk from CZ 1935-1938 and made astockpile of the stuff?

[HMS Warspite]

Hmm so if they needed more they could have orderd in bulk from CZ 1935-1938 and made astockpile of the stuff?


Do not forget the Czechoslowakian millitary also needed large quanteties of it for its army and fortresses, so even this purchased material was about the largest possible to aquire from other sources. Germany was also trying to purchase it, although was not succesfull due to political rivalry with the Czech.

Main point will remane the same, Armor was on too short a supply to do such large scale building, unless the starting date is moved further into the early 20's, which on itself is unlikely, given the economical situation around that time.

[rip89]

Ive been digging around on the warships project board, to see what I could find about armour production.

Alot of different estimates were found, but I think this is the most interesting as it is on the lower end of the scale. 35,000 tons per year pre-war, could be brought up to 56,000 tons per year with no significant investment (according to the companies), 60,000 tons a year with minor improvements to existing facilities, if a new £5.5 million plant is built 85,000 tons taking 2.5 years to build.

3 battleships (lion class) would need 48,000 tons of armour, as the number of battleships to be laid down over a 9 year plan would be 2 per year and staggerd 1 every 6 months this means 32,000 tons a year for the battleships, now also according to what I read 12,000 tons was brought from the czech republic in 39. So by buying czech armour plate in 36,37,38 and boosting production in existing plants, you could cover any shortfall until a new plant is brought and have sufficient to cover other needs say we go with 56,000 tons a year you could allocate 46,000 to the navy and still have 10,000 for the army.

Also the capacity to build 22 16in guns a year existed.

I suppose the issue is would the government invest in industrial plant? It definitley would help with employment and could be seen as vote winner apart from other things
I have just spent a sunday afternoon thinking about armour plate and watching cricket - weird combo.