13 .5 inch monitors

tigercat

How do you get 13 5 inch armed Monitors .

During WW2 even if guns have been stored you hit issue of supply and logistics for munitions .

Post WW1 you probably have lack of real role in peace time and the fast approaching Washington Treaty putting limitations on ships .

The only way I can see is perhaps in 1920 as older 13.5 inch battleships are scrapped their armament is reused and that they are seen as alternative to coastal artillery so perceived as more akin to guard ships than monitors

So maybe 3 or 4 for Singapore and maybe some export orders for Dutch to defend their empire .
 

tigercat

Peg Leg Pom said:
Plus Gib, Malta, Aden, Cape Town, Darwin.
Click to expand...


ok so we scrap the Orion class slightly early and use 1 x 13.5 inch turret and 10 4 inch guns for each monitor of Approximately 8000 tons .

Building 5 a year starting 1920

1920 Aetna class

HMS Aetna
HMS Volcano
HMS Vesuvius
HMS Hec la
HMS Strombolo

1921 Basilisk class

HMS Basilisk
HMS Phoenix
HMS Firedrake
HMS Salamander
HMS Chimera

1922 Infernal class

HMS Infernal
HMS Sulphur
HMS Acheron
HMS Lucifer
HMS Beezelbub


for export
1921
HNLMS Evertsen
HNLMS Kortenaer
 

CV12Hornet

tigercat said:
During WW2 even if guns have been stored you hit issue of supply and logistics for munitions .
Click to expand...
Not really. You had six turrets hauled off of Tiger and Iron Duke in 1939, plus 54 guns, and for ammunition you can keep more stockpiled if you plan it right. 13.5" ships served in active service right up until 1930, and there was still enough ammunition around in 1939 that the British put three guns on rails as rail artillery. Oh, and were planning to sell some to Turkey before the deal fell through.

I think keeping enough ammunition for six monitors is eminently doable.

Seventeen? Yeah, no, not when these are competing for money with new capital ships and cruisers that the Royal Navy desperately needs in 1920.
 

Peg Leg Pom

tigercat said:
ok so we scrap the Orion class slightly early and use 1 x 13.5 inch turret and 10 4 inch guns for each monitor of Approximately 8000 tons .

Building 5 a year starting 1920

1920 Aetna class

HMS Aetna
HMS Volcano
HMS Vesuvius
HMS Hec la
HMS Strombolo

1921 Basilisk class

HMS Basilisk
HMS Phoenix
HMS Firedrake
HMS Salamander
HMS Chimera

1922 Infernal class

HMS Infernal
HMS Sulphur
HMS Acheron
HMS Lucifer
HMS Beezelbub


for export
1921
HNLMS Evertsen
HNLMS Kortenaer
Click to expand...

To be honest I was thinking of extra coastal defence guns to justify keeping the ammunition production line running, not mass producing that many monitors.
 

I want to learn

What purpose does scrapping the Orions and building newer crappier ships under their guns serve? If the Royal Navy needed more third line ships with big guns for coastal defense and shore bombardment, they could have kept the Orions in service. Just about every navy who ever operated a dreadnought operated dreadnoughts older than the Orion during World War Two. The exception that proves the rule is Germany, who set off the whole conflagration with shots fired from a predreadnought.
 

Peg Leg Pom

Just a suggestion.

upload_2019-10-8_23-23-3.png
 

Colonel Grubb

A not entirely un-attractive design. I'd probably throw a catapult/crane for a TSR spec aircraft instead of the autogryo platform, though will lose coolness-points.
 

Father Maryland

I want to learn said:
What purpose does scrapping the Orions and building newer crappier ships under their guns serve? If the Royal Navy needed more third line ships with big guns for coastal defense and shore bombardment, they could have kept the Orions in service. Just about every navy who ever operated a dreadnought operated dreadnoughts older than the Orion during World War Two. The exception that proves the rule is Germany, who set off the whole conflagration with shots fired from a predreadnought.
Click to expand...

Because most battleships in WW2 weren't actually used to battle other ships. For the allies the BB's found their greatest service as coastal bombardment support for amphibious operations.

Among the benefits are

1) Smaller shallower draft vessels can get closer in and provide much closer support then a full dreadnought.
2) Much cheaper so multiple can be built for the same cost as a BB.
3) Much smaller crew so easier to man.
4) Thanks to their lower cost and much smaller crew they can be treated as more disposable then a full BB and allowed to go into more dangerous conditions to provide closer support.

With the crew of a Orion you can man multiple Ereberus or Robert's class. Lose an Orion you've lost over a thousand men. Lose a Roberts or Ereberus and you've lost less then five hundred.
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
Colonel Grubb said:
In theory yes, however the series of interwar Australian governments say no. And then doubles down on that no.
Click to expand...

The Australian Government decided to not trust the Royal Navy for their local defence before WW1. If they are willing to spend money it will be on RAN ships, which will be released to RN control when the AU Govt is good and ready (see HMAS Australia). Now about regional defence plans, Singapore you say?
 

Peg Leg Pom

If Australia was going to build monitors, I think they'd use the 12" turrets from the redundant HMAS Australia. They could probably build them locally as well.
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
Other than Japan (which requires RN ships in bulk to deal with), local defence needs to deal with raiders and subs - which means cruisers, destroyers and minesweepers. I also doubt Garden Island can build anything that can carry 12" turrets.
 

Dorknought

This is what HMS Agincourt modified as a Mobile Base Defence ship was for (3 twin 12” turrets). The WNT won’t permit new construction of monitors which the existing ones were included as ‘special ships’.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top