Alternative Royal Navy for the 1930s

Okay this is my first attempt at an ATL - Please be gentle

First some back ground

I became interested in ATLs having first read Fatherland and then Tony William's The Foresight War (one of the better attempts at an ATL WW2 IMO) and have been interested in the Royal navy since I was very very little.

Historically although much loved and admired by the British people and others in the 1930s the Navy like the rest of the British armed forces had pretty much withered on the vine in the face of the 10 year plan and austerity issues of the day as well as the limitations imposed by the various treaties. By the time the need for re-armament was realised and acted upon war was very nearly upon them.

My idea is that from 1934 Britain takes 'more' interest in the world stage and shapes the navy accordingly.

I've not picked up on a POD yet (any advise much appreciated) - but basically for now imagine that I have travelled back in time and have somehow convinced the powers that be that I'm not crazy!

The next post will deal with Aircraft carriers and the Fleet air arm

Well, as long as you're balanced, don't try to wank it, and listen to the constructive criticism, you'll be more than alright. Where other posters have fallen down is insulting our intelligence and ignoring our bullshit detector...

I'm looking fowrard to it. Does it include German carriers?

I don't think the problem is that the RN,

had pretty much withered on the vine in the face of the 10 year plan and austerity issues of the day as well as the limitations imposed by the various treaties.

Click to expand...

It was the 1st (or 1st equal) in the world !

It just wasn't quite capable of being the world police force .

I don't think you can really give the RN the power to fight 3 other great powers without a major industrial/financial wank (Germany, Italy, bombard the French and then fight Japan without much help till later on.)

IMO you need to wank British diplomacy not the RN.
(Britain could have made better coalitions, made less /ignored some enemy's)


JSB

Wasn't one of the pillars of the WNT a collective calculus of local & world economics; along with taking the temperature of expected diplomatic & political developments?

I would think there would have been a drive to extend that thought line considering the future of the Empire over the next 10-15 years. Who could be potential threats, what are the conditions that could make the threat more real, and what ships do you need to counter that perceived threat? Then... factor in what financial and basing resources do you have to work with.

In the early 1930's, who would the British view as potential (realistic) threats? Japan? the Soviets? Italians? What about other less likely, but formidable threats like the French or US. How did they perceive the level of German rearmament?

In hindsight, for the East, maybe they should have put more emphasis on long range submarines as a deterrent(even though they lobbied to ban subs). Another hindsight view, would have been to have a non-armored carrier - more for use in the Indian & Pacific Oceans. The objective would be to get more aircraft to areas far removed from the source in Britain. Give the FAA a better carrier born fighter, too. Again, another hindsight move, more use of better dual-purpose guns?

Wasn't there also political pressure to retain some of the oldest of the battleships past their "sell by" date? Would it have been possible to scrap the old Revenge class ships? Recycle for use elsewhere, or stock pile the ordnance

The problem is that GB cant afford 3 fleets each of which have to be bigger (as the RN cant choose when to fight) than the KM,RM,IJN.

The way to deal with this in (ASB) hindsight isn't to build better ships with DP guns/subs/CVs etc. Its to destroy one of your opponents before they are all ready

May I suggest a few options,

1) Abyssinia ?
2) Rhineland ?
3) do you really care about defending china ? sell them out to keep the Japanese busy for a few years.

JSB

Considering that naval strength can be reversed in a day I'd say that the British do have the resources to take on the KM/RM and IJN if WW2 follows largely the same course as OTL. The opportunity to remove the KM came in Norway, months before Italy entered the war, but only 2 light cruisers were sunk and the S & G and Hipper were only damaged at the cost of a Carrier. If the S & G and Hipper are sunk rather than damaged the KM would consist of 1 light cruiser and destroyers plus whatever Panzerschliffe remain. This would give the RN until April 1941 to deal with the RM before the Bismark is ready, which should be plenty of time. With the KM down to the Tirpitz and the RM impotent the RN could have enough strength to send a powerful fleet to Singapore in late 1941.

I'd say that Britain's biggest problem is internal politics and some bad decisions that could have gone the other way. Decisions like the one to keep the FAA in the RAF in 1923, or build the 5.25" gun and small cruisers, of the 14" gun and OTL KGV BBs, or armoured hangar carriers.

Thank you for your responses - much appreciated

With regards to fleet capability - it has to fall into two main parts

Defence of the commerce fleets

-Escort ships (from armed trawlers to BBs)
-Martime patrol aircraft (Bomber command is not going to like me)
-Home fleet (to defend the UK and over match the German Fleet)

Defence of the Empire

-Initially this would involve defending the communication links with the rest of the Empire via the Suez - so Gib, Malta and Egypt and the Mediterranean fleet. Basically 'dominating' the poor Italian's

-The far east - I was thinking of increased trade with Japan in an effort to make them feel 'not so isolated' by the Americans in the late 30s. Guarantee them resources etc "please build us lots of freighters" (Arrrggghhh the unions!!!!!) - perhaps angling things as a potential coalition vs the Russians on the understanding that they behave themselves. Difficult given the way that they had been treated in the 20s and early 30s and the nationalistic hawks gaining power at that time.


Regarding carriers etc armoured carriers are the correct type of ship if you are conducting littoral style Naval ops and are likely to be within range of land based air power. I used to think that they were a sensible choice when ordered but ultimately the wrong type of carrier in the light of accepted facts. Which are largely wrong as it turns out.

This site is brilliant.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/

Completely changed my mind on a lot of accepted 'facts' regarding British WW2 carrier ops - however I still think that they were too small.

As for Secondary guns - Tony Williams has a very good 'what if' article on his site regarding the 4", 4.5" 4.7" and 5.25" guns that decorated various Naval vessels

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MCGWW2.html

His logic is spot on AFAIAC

As for policy change - I'm not letting Winston Anywhere near my ships!!!!

Now though I am going to sleep and think on this tomorrow.

Check out Astrodragon's ATL Whale has Wings

Its a wank, but chock full of information on how the Royal Navy, especially the Fleet Air Arm, could have developed if they didn't suffer from Air Ministry interference.

Change of retained ships...

One option for the British might be to dispose of a couple of the R's and keep one or two of the 13.5" battlecruisers--the R's were just plain too slow. This, of course, has large butterflies as the so-called "pocket battleships" would have a couple more ships that could both outrun and obliterate them...

It would take some very different logic to get there, though...

NHBL said:

One option for the British might be to dispose of a couple of the R's and keep one or two of the 13.5" battlecruisers--the R's were just plain too slow. This, of course, has large butterflies as the so-called "pocket battleships" would have a couple more ships that could both outrun and obliterate them...

It would take some very different logic to get there, though...

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you're referring to the Iron Duke-class. They suffered from war weariness, and maintaining those old 13.5" obsolescent shells would have been a problem. Yes, 13.5" were used in WWII, but to the best of my knowledge only by monitors for shore bombardment in the Channel.

usertron2020 said:

I'm assuming you're referring to the Iron Duke-class. They suffered from war weariness, and maintaining those old 13.5" obsolescent shells would have been a problem. Yes, 13.5" were used in WWII, but to the best of my knowledge only by monitors for shore bombardment in the Channel.

Click to expand...

He specifically noted the 13.5 inch battlecruisers so that would be Tiger and the Lions

IIRC one of the problems for the RN and the British Goverment was that at the LNT the Navies of the Empire and Dominions were retricted by the other powers because they were considered as an intergral part of the RN. If You can get past that, then some intersting options open up Post WW1. The RN has a lot of Spare ships at this time, yes some are obselecent and others are tired but there are useful units for coloniel navies. Options are possibly, The Iorn Dukes, or the big cats. Though it might be ABS I would like to see all the 13.5" turrets stored, by all accounts they were good weapons and having them in reserve opens up options in the 1930. I disagree about the small 6" being wrong for the RN, converesly I would Say that the 8" x 10,000 teaty cruisers were a problem. The RN need more smaller cruisrs for trade protection and colonial policing. Now if at the LNT, the RN ditch the hawkins class with there 7.5" guns then maybe a 6" gun limit on cruisers may be attainable. Now if the Giving the cononies the Hawkins might be politicaly viable if larger ships are not. My personal preverence in ABS terms would be to convert all the Hawkins into Carriers with and independant FAA from 1923 onwards.

The problem is the WNT and later treaties were very specific about what was to be done to older ships. Frex, scrapping, disarming, converting into training vessels, target ships, museum ships, and so on. If the RN is permitted to keep older ships, even in a reduced state, or else fobbing them off to Dominion navies who may not want them, then what do the other major naval powers get in return? Because both the USA and Japan wanted newer ships, not recycled old ones. At least, not as old as frex BBs like the Wyoming or Utah.

What would an Australian/New Zealand government want with worn out old capital ships that would be no match whatsoever for their only real prospective enemy, Japan? Particularly when they are not likely to have the $$$ to support them, or supply the needed escorts?

Canada wants a navy that will maintain the supply lines between herself and the UK, not battleships/battlecruisers too obsolescent for a possible war in the 1940s. Meaning, lots of lighter cruisers and escorts.

I've seen this kind of logic on AH.com before regarding the Dominions, and the logic often seemed to imply that it is the duty of each Dominion to build up a navy designed to join up as integral parts of the Royal Navy, not to serve the specific needs for each Dominion's defense. There is a need for everyone to fight together of course, but you can't expect each Dominion to leave itself defenseless. WWII OTL Australia and New Zealand made that mistake, but they (esp. Oz) were lucky.

Things could have been a lot worse.

usertron2020 said:

I've seen this kind of logic on AH.com before regarding the Dominions, and the logic often seemed to imply that it is the duty of each Dominion to build up a navy designed to join up as integral parts of the Royal Navy, not to serve the specific needs for each Dominion's defense. There is a need for everyone to fight together of course, but you can't expect each Dominion to leave itself defenseless. WWII OTL Australia and New Zealand made that mistake, but they (esp. Oz) were lucky.

Click to expand...

The reason the other powers made sure dominion tonnage counted in WNT,LNT is that they where really part of the RN.

The Dominions knew (well apart from Canada) that they stood or fell with GB as they cant afford or build a fleet to stop Japan by themselves.

Its also easy from our perspective now to underestimate how close they felt (the Statute of Westminster was only signed by NZ in 47 !)

JSB

HMAS Australia and Canberra were 2 of the 15 8" cruisers allowed by the WNT.

I do wonder if it would be possible to slightly alter HMS Ark Royal's design so as to prevent a single torpedo from sinking her.

I have thought long and hard about the same problems . I think the best you can do to "fix" the Royal Navy is to address the air and sub surface threat .


The Royal Navy Destroyers were meant to be the maids of all work . in reality 40 degree main guns were severely inadequate . The 4.7 was a great gun . the 4 inch was fantastic . either one was better then the hodge podge of calibres they ended up with . I would get rid of the 5.25 completely . I would also stipulate all destroyers have 70 degree main guns .

As another poster has stated Tony's website is brilliant . he knows what he's talking about . I would however use economics as a driving force . ie we already have 4 and 4.7 inch guns . any new mount must be able to use either the shells or the complete round as it already exists . Power ramming would help .

The second change would make the Fleet Air arm purely under Royal Navy control . also make an air ministry that controls Research and Development contracts. Do not ever give Bureaucrats control of designing anything . just dole out the money and make certain research available to industry . also make RN and RAF aircraft use similar engines etc or be derivatives of each other once again in the name of economics.

As for the ships well , most of the losses were from Aircraft and submarines . combat those and you do much better . If ever destroyer has a min of 6 twin 4 inch HA well their is a large difference to your Aircraft problem . Add in more modern Aircraft that are larger and you will increase the size and effectiveness of the Carriers as well . they will need to grow to fit the Aircraft . better AA would also drive down a lot of the Armoured carrier drivers.

Another thing you could do is continue working on the high pressure steam plant experiments with HMS Archeron. This, combined with getting rid of the 5.25" gun could give tou a King George V Class Battleship with 12 14" guns in quad turrets and a top speed to 30 knots. Perhaps the Anson and Howe are fitted with triple 16s instead.

Oh and maybe stipulate that carriers must carry at least as many fighters as the Courageous class.

What you will to bear in mind is that nothing happens in isolation - the RN gets bigger, other navies grow, the RN go one direction in ship design the other notice and adapt. Finally I would suggest that you will need to consider the matter of money. Nothing can be build for nothing, a extra pound to the RN is a pond less somewhere else

Build something in between a black swan and a hunt class earlier