Optimize the RN for WWII

Reader mode

Spencersj345.346

Congratulations you've been made 3rd Sea Lord at the beginning of 1923 and will hold the post till the beginning of 1939.
Your objective is to optimize the RN especially its new designs and refits of existing ships for WWII. Assume you get around a 10 to 15% larger budget than otl and slightly less moronic politicians as related to at least the 2nd LNT if not 1st LNT.
So what would you do?
Yes future knowledge is allowed to be used
 
Last edited:

Amagi

Invest millions in anti-submarine equipment, scrap the HMS Hood, send spies to Germany after 1933 and become the leading anti-Hitler voice in UK politics.
 

Peg Leg Pom

Get control of the Fleet Air Arm back from the Royal Air Force by whatever means needed.

Sacrifice the 13.5" gunned Battleships to gain funds for R and D but retain Tiger for a full rebuild once Nelson and Rodney are complete to be followed by Hood. Then rebuild all 5 Q.E's. Save the turrets from scrapped Battleships but modify them to take modern 14" guns then when the building holiday expires they're ready for use in the KGV's and monitors. Don't let the Government reduce carrier tonnage down to 23'000 tons and build the Illustrious class as improved Implacable class carriers with full height hanger decks. Escorts, escorts and more escorts are the order of the day. (Ships not girls)
 
Last edited:

kelgar04

Peg Leg Pom said:
Get control of the Fleet Air Arm back from the Royal Air Force by whatever means needed.
Click to expand...
Recommend you throw Boom and the rest of the Mahogany bombers in a closet somewhere before getting out the prybar since the RAF is very protective of anything that flies.
 

brazen

Amagi said:
Invest millions in anti-submarine equipment, scrap the HMS Hood, send spies to Germany after 1933 and become the leading anti-Hitler voice in UK pol
Click to expand...
The RN has the most efficient underwater detection equipment in the world , all escorts have depth charges and Asdic and have practiced convoying, can you elaborate on what else they need to fund.

Scrapping the biggest and fastest capital ship in the world in 1933 needs a bit of justification rather than a throw away sentence.

No one in power in 1933 is listening to anyone going on about how terrible Hitler is, especially someone with a vested interest in the RN getting more cash to rebuild.
 

kelgar04

Given that the Germans had to nick RN torpedos because they had the same issue as the USN did when they entred the war.
 
CV(N)-6

CV(N)-6

Invest more in ASW tactics, retain control of the FAA, retain Tiger if funds allow, make the Alt-Nelsons faster, rebuild the QEs and battlecruisers, generally slightly increase the size of the destroyers so they can take more AA and ASW off the top of my head. A decent DP gun being adopted earlier would be helpful as well.
 

kelgar04

Wouldn't that require both the London and Washington Treaties not going through or at least one of them not going through?
 

fester

Let's back a bit out of the scenario --- what were the major shortcomings of the RN in WWII first, and then from there solutions may follow:

1) The RN was fighting a 3 to 4 (Atlantic, Med, Far East, Arctic) theatre war with a 2 theatre fleet
2) The RN had a block building problem with both their battleship and cruiser fleets going into the 30s
3) Basing Infrastructure was adequate in peacetime but had several locations where a key node being removed completely altered theatre logistics
4) Singapore strategy was based on the RN fighting a 1 power war
5) Building to Treaty specifications and more importantly in the mid-30s Hoped For Treaty specs limits flexibility and longevity of the fleet.
6) The combination of Ethiopia and Spain placed high short of war demands on the fleet that changed operational patterns and increased operational funding needs.
7) poor integration of air power into the fleet concept as someone else owned the air planes

Solve those problems first IMO
 

CV12Hornet

First of all, no 2nd London. Shove it in a ditch where it belongs.

Give Malaya and Repulse the Warspite treatment in 1933/1934.

Build the KGVs with the 15” Mk.2.

Definitely build the Illustriouses as 27,000-toners. Wrench control of aircraft development from the RAF, and fund development of a single-seat interceptor in addition to a modern two-seat scout and escort fighter and torpedo bomber. Also, see if you can make either of the latter two types into a decent dive bomber. Blacklist Blackburn, the RAF can take their shovelware if they want it.

Have a Colossus-style light carrier design ready going into 1939.

See if I can squeeze in more cruisers at any point. Also, build the Colonies as improved Edinburghs.

Start new destroyer construction earlier - say a couple years after Amazon and Ambuscade finish - and persuade the government to not put tonnage caps on destroyers.

More funding into ASW; have a low-cost escort in production heading into 1939.

Develop the 4.7” Mark XI instead of the 4.5” and 5.25”, minus the mount flaws and at the same time as the other guns. Make it into a proper DP gun.

Throw some funding at the 2-pounder Mark VIII to get it in service faster. Then start development of a better version with more velocity and a proper tracer round.

Cashier any officers who made catastrophic blunders IOTL.
 
Last edited:

kelgar04

All that would require and expansion of the technical training as well as an expansion in infrastructure and shipbuilding to maintain and build up.
 

brazen

The 4.7" MKXI in the 5.25" turret would be a good fit, smaller rounds, smaller gun but with excellent ballistic properties in both the AA and ASW situations.
4" twin MK XVI standardised as the main mount of anything less than 2000 Tons.

The RN doctrine for use of aircraft is sound within the context of the time, make it so Hurricanes are the fleet fighter and Skua/Fulmars are recon/DB with only a tertiary use as a fighter in exceptional circumstances then the RN is pretty advanced in terms of aircraft and the use of them in 1939.
 

CV12Hornet

brazen said:
The 4.7" MKXI in the 5.25" turret would be a good fit, smaller rounds, smaller gun but with excellent ballistic properties in both the AA and ASW situations.
4" twin MK XVI standardised as the main mount of anything less than 2000 Tons.

The RN doctrine for use of aircraft is sound within the context of the time, make it so Hurricanes are the fleet fighter and Skua/Fulmars are recon/DB with only a tertiary use as a fighter in exceptional circumstances then the RN is pretty advanced in terms of aircraft and the use of them in 1939.
Click to expand...
I want something with more anti-surface punch than just a 4” for destroyers.

Similarly, I’d prefer something more carrier-optimized than the Sea Hurricane.
 

tomo pauk

Don't allow for Skua program to slip that much. Sleeve-valve engines are not worth it before 1940, keep the things simple by choosing the Pegasus engines instead, that also make better power and at greater altitude, that should allow for a greater payload.
Swordfish is a fine aircraft to carry torpedo and to operate on short ships, go on with 900+ HP Pegasus and enclosed cabin so the adverse weather is not that a problem for the crew when operating on long patrols above North Atlantic.
Sea Hurricane, but earlier. Introduce wing folding (something simple, perhaps at the flap/aileron junction point). Beard radiator might be less of a problem for ditching. See whether the Hurricane can be turned into a 2-seater. Forget RR making the Exe, make a deal for 2-speed supercharged Merlins instead.
Perhaps Supermarine can stretch the basic Spitfire design into a bigger 2-seater, they made a number of paper projects inn the 2nd half of 1930s in that vogue.
 

Nick P

Donor
I'd look at investing in Australian and Canadian dockyards to ensure they can produce more of their own warships, and maintain a larger (visiting) fleet.

Design a corvette class suited for sub hunting, mine-sweeping, convoy escort and patrol duties. An ultimate Flower-class if you like, but one that is faster and doesn't "roll on wet grass". Must be simple and quick to build in the smaller shipyards around the UK and Empire.
 

brazen

CV12Hornet said:
I want something with more anti-surface punch than just a 4” for destroyers.

Similarly, I’d prefer something more carrier-optimized than the Sea Hurricane.
Click to expand...
8 4" guns on a destroyer in a quick firing simple mount, it's going to wreck anything under a Cruiser in pretty short time just through weight of fire, plus the AA capability is greatly enhanced, 4" might not go through a cruisers belt but it would wreck a cruisers upper works quite thoroughly.

The 4 L class destroyers with the 4" guns were very highly thought of after some initial misgivings, the experience with Force H was that the weight of fire more than outweighed the smaller shell size.

Tribal, J, K, L, M and N classes still get twin 4.7" if the twin turret is viable, but all the proceeding classes could be refitted with the twin 4", plus war emergency ships would benefit from being armed with 3 x 4" twins plus a quad pom pom.

A naval Hurricane in 1939 is THE premier fighter being used on a ship, follow Tomo Pauk's other points as well, apart from the two seat Hurricanes (isn't that just a Henley?) and Spitfires.

Fairey make very good two seat DB/ Recon/ Fighter aircraft so the Fulmar is ready to DB from it's initial employment aboard the RN carriers, if this is available from 1939 it's also the best DB in the world.
 

Spencersj345.346

Probably would need to either modify the Pom Pom to either be more effective and/or get the bofors 40mm and Orlikeon 20mm licenses as early as possible
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top