RN 1937 battleship design - G3 updated?

[merlin]

When the WNT came to an end 31/12/1936 - and the RN had a moment to re-access the future construction.
Why didn't they retrieve the old G3 designs, and update them, rather than build so many KGVs, and design the Lions that didn't happen.

So, with that in mind, how would a 1937 designed G3 look like? Secondary armament wold be different to take account of the increased danger of aircraft. And while not available, they may be provision made for radar to be fitted in the future.
Anything else?

 

[Hood]

When the WNT came to an end 31/12/1936 - and the RN had a moment to re-access the future construction.
Why didn't they retrieve the old G3 designs, and update them, rather than build so many KGVs, and design the Lions that didn't happen.

So, with that in mind, how would a 1937 designed G3 look like? Secondary armament wold be different to take account of the increased danger of aircraft. And while not available, they may be provision made for radar to be fitted in the future.
Anything else?

LNT kinda got in the way...

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Especially 2nd London Naval Treaty, which set limits at 35,000 tons, 14" guns. Have to get them to go for a 40,000 ton design early, as the lead time needed for battleships means any delay leaves Britain without modern ships. The true weight of the German (11" and 15") and Japanese battleships (18") is revealed somehow?

 

[Hood]

Especially 2nd London Naval Treaty, which set limits at 35,000 tons, 14" guns. Have to get them to go for a 40,000 ton design early, as the lead time needed for battleships means any delay leaves Britain without modern ships. The true weight of the German (11" and 15") and Japanese battleships (18") is revealed somehow?

Or Britain just realises a second treaty is against their interests, considering it ruins the infrastructure, Germany is rebuilding, and they need new ships

 

[merlin]

AH, oops, saw that Japan withdraw, missed (too brief the info in small reference book) the bit where the rest carry on - unaware!!

Then, why wait till outbreak of war, before deciding the Treaty is pass its 'sell-by-date'? If we can't start it in '37, then seems plausible that design studies could have started anytime after the start of the Czech crisis, and up to the German take-over of the rest of the country (Slovakia) - March '39.
So, could HMS Anson & HMS Howe be G£+s even if the launch is a bit later (e.g. six-months).

 

[CV12Hornet]

AH, oops, saw that Japan withdraw, missed (too brief the info in small reference book) the bit where the rest carry on - unaware!!

Then, why wait till outbreak of war, before deciding the Treaty is pass its 'sell-by-date'? If we can't start it in '37, then seems plausible that design studies could have started anytime after the start of the Czech crisis, and up to the German take-over of the rest of the country (Slovakia) - March '39.
So, could HMS Anson & HMS Howe be G£+s even if the launch is a bit later (e.g. six-months).

No. Anson and Howe were laid down in 1937 like the rest of the KGVs; they only were completed in 1942 because so much else was competing for material. Generally, when wondering whether you can replace ships in the building queue, lay-down dates are far more relevant than launch dates.

 

[jsb]

how would a 1937 designed G3 look like?

Lions but a bit stronger, unless N3 got built and then we are in the real land of giants...

in the gap they had decided they did not like many of G3s/O3s design features/trade off's, such as internal belt, all forward main guns etc.

 

[michael1]

British ideas on protection had changed since the early 1920s. Amongst other things they believed in greater spacing of turrets and magazines, which meant the weight gains from clustering all the turrets together in order to reduce the length of the armoured belt was much less. With the new ideas the turrets needed to be spaced out so you might as well put the engine rooms between them.

Larger and faster versions of the lions were sketched out and were about the same size as the G3s, machinery improvements were offset by greater AA firepower, embarked aircraft and better torpedo protection.

The British position in 1936-7 of desiring limits on the size of ships but not the number makes a lot of sense from a US-UK point of view as long as everyone else adopts the same size limits and obeys them. The problem was that other countries knew they couldn't match the UK or the US in numbers and instead relied on building fewer and better ships that would be reasonably invulnerable to the smaller US & UK ships. Some of these countries were willing to lie so it wasn't until after the KGVs and early US battleships were laid down that the US and the UK abandoned limits on size.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I think by 1937 the O3 and G3 and N3 design was no longer on the cards

While the potential shorter citadel that grouping the guns did allow for a saving in over all armour weight the RN had experienced all sorts of issues running the Nelsons and it had been decided by the time the KGVs and Lions were being designed that the O3 design required too many other compromises and a 'conventional' inline fore and aft turret arrangement was preferred

Hence why the KGV and Lions (and for that matter SoDak, NoCal and Iowa's) went for a 3 turret design (2 forward, 1 aft) or in the case of the Guards Van and unbuilt Montanas 2 + 2

I rather like the G3 design and it made sense in the early 20s to have built it in response to the other nations post war ships had they been built - but by 1937 the idea of fighting in line of battle was no longer the ideal way of doing things and the KGV/Lion was the sensible move.

As for build times etc - all were laid down between 1st Jan and 20th July 1937 and all were launched by 9th April 1940 and the last commissioned in June 1942

The 2 Lions that were laid down were both started before the outbreak of WW2 but work was suspended to release resources and workers etc for escorts etc.

Had the war not started it is likely that the RN would have been the proud owner of 5 KGVs and 6 Lions by 1944

Only the French seem to have gone for a 'grouped' main weapon design post 2nd LNT

 

[michael1]

It's not obvious to me that the RN would have been significantly better off building the lions instead of the KGVs. The KGVs were individually marginally weaker than the Bismark, the Lions were stronger, in either case the British would probably need two BBs to be sure of beating one Bismark in a fight. Going to G3 size might have enabled the British to be confident about pitting one super lion against Bismark, but Germany might well have built bigger ships in response, negating any advantage.

 

[jsb]

but Germany might well have built bigger ships in response, negating any advantage.

It would not have required much of a delay from having to build bigger parts and facilities for the German ships to effectively miss the war so might be very helpful to RN.

 

[DaveBC]

Much of this is old hat to some of the people I know have already responded but just as general background to the original question -- basically, politics and inertia.

The N3 design had some innovations based on WWI experience in terms of armor and of course the larger guns. Under the new arms control limitations, however, the guns were too big and the total displacement was far too heavy, so the design had to be scrapped. The Nelson class was a compromise intended to fit within the treaty requirements while borrowing some ideas from the N3 work.

The next class after the Nelsons, the new KGV class, was designed in anticipation of another arms control treaty that would have limited the guns to 14 inches.

Japan refused to accept the terms of this treaty. This was anticipated by the negotiators who agreed that in the event, the gun limit would be raised to 16 inches. Britain then went ahead with a new design carrying 16 inch guns and shaving down armor and secondary guns to stay in the weight limit.

However, because Japan also then refused to provide any other information on its new battleship designs, the treaty weight limits were raised to 45,000 tons (IIRC) in 1938. By that time design work on the new British class was already well advanced so they tacked the armor and secondary guns back on. This is the Lion class, which ultimately was never completed.

Then, in 1939, it became clear that new German and Japanese construction -- well beyond treaty limits -- would require a British response, so they moved to another new design, which became one ship, the Vanguard. Rather than an all-new design, though, this was basically just the Lion design but modified to carry an extra turret. (Four turrets total, because the British just happened to have four turrets left over from converting old battlecruisers into aircraft carriers, so it saved them the cost of buying new ones.)

And after Vanguard, of course, it was pretty obvious that the age of the battleship was done and that even if it wasn't Britain wouldn't be leading the battleship race anymore anyways.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

It's not obvious to me that the RN would have been significantly better off building the lions instead of the KGVs. The KGVs were individually marginally weaker than the Bismark, the Lions were stronger, in either case the British would probably need two BBs to be sure of beating one Bismark in a fight. Going to G3 size might have enabled the British to be confident about pitting one super lion against Bismark, but Germany might well have built bigger ships in response, negating any advantage.

The British never intended to fight fair - Denmark strait was always intended 'at minimum' to be Hood + POW, 2 Heavy Crusiers and a flotilla of DDs - but having lost contact during the night the plan went to shit

The KGV design was treaty limited - they could have waited like the US for the Escalator clause and laid the KGVs down towards the end of the year as effectively Lions but that would have delayed their construction by at least 6 months possibly longer.

As it was the US were still working their ships up in Dec 1941 - that was no good for the UK - no one knew when the war was going to kick off. By ordering when they did the British ended up with 5 ships that served them well and (as much as it pains me) ended up not wasting resources on the 4-6 Lion class BBs that would very likely have arrived to late to have been of any use.

As for which ship was weaker - well the Bismarck might have been bigger than a KGV and a NoCol but she was an inferior design to basically all of the Post treaty warships.

 

[173rd LRRP]

The Royal Navy wanted modern battleships; however, would the UK not have been better served by not building new battleships but spending the funds on more useful weapons

 

[fester]

The Royal Navy wanted modern battleships; however, would the UK not have been better served by not building new battleships but spending the funds on more useful weapons

Battleships were very useful until late 41 globally and critical in the Arctic for longer due to weather and darkness limitations for carriers.

 

[DaveBC]

Battleships were very useful until late 41 globally and critical in the Arctic for longer due to weather and darkness limitations for carriers.

Indeed. It seems to me that the thing to bear in mind when considering these "what if" questions about the evolution of battleships that pop up here routinely is to remember that despite seemingly being the great pinnacle of naval technology, battleships are actually so specialized that they're a risky play almost from the very beginning. Even in World War I, it's obvious that battleships are horrendously vulnerable to mines and torpedoes.

The reason for this is that the only real use for a Dreadnought-type battleship is to fight other battleships. The fundamental reason to make a bigger battleship is to give it bigger guns, and the only reason to replace your 15-inch guns with 16-inch guns is so that you can sink all the ships with 15-inch guns. Pre-Dreadnought battleships were ironically far more useful in other respects, except for speed, obviously.

Yes, I'm simplifying, but at some level it's a simple game. Battleships aren't very versatile. For commerce raiding, for patrols, for just about anything other than engagements with other battleships, they're too big to do the job efficiently and they're too expensive to risk sending out for such missions anyways. If your real goal is, say, shooting up an invasion fleet -- a la the Sea Lion fantasy that gets played out here every so often -- then it would have been rather more useful if you'd taken all that steel and shop space to build nine 15-inch guns and invested it in building a few hundred small guns instead. If your goal is bombarding the enemy coast, well, there aren't a whole lot of targets within 20 miles of the shore that are so hardened that only a 2000-pound shell will do. And so on and so forth.

Adding air power tipped an already precarious balance, and in retrospect one has to wonder what might been achieved with the amount of metal and man-hours lost to it as a result.

 

[jsb]

..It seems to me that the thing to bear in mind when considering these "what if" questions about the evolution of battleships that pop up here routinely is to remember that despite seemingly being the great pinnacle of naval technology, battleships are actually so specialized that they're a risky play almost from the very beginning. Even in World War I, it's obvious that battleships are horrendously vulnerable to mines and torpedoes.

The reason for this is that the only real use for a Dreadnought-type battleship is to fight other battleships. The fundamental reason to make a bigger battleship is to give it bigger guns, and the only reason to replace your 15-inch guns with 16-inch guns is so that you can sink all the ships with 15-inch guns. Pre-Dreadnought battleships were ironically far more useful in other respects, except for speed, obviously.

Yes, I'm simplifying, but at some level it's a simple game. Battleships aren't very versatile. For commerce raiding, for patrols, for just about anything other than engagements with other battleships, they're too big to do the job efficiently and they're too expensive to risk sending out for such missions anyways. If your real goal is, say, shooting up an invasion fleet -- a la the Sea Lion fantasy that gets played out here every so often -- then it would have been rather more useful if you'd taken all that steel and shop space to build nine 15-inch guns and invested it in building a few hundred small guns instead. If your goal is bombarding the enemy coast, well, there aren't a whole lot of targets within 20 miles of the shore that are so hardened that only a 2000-pound shell will do. And so on and so forth.

Adding air power tipped an already precarious balance, and in retrospect one has to wonder what might been achieved with the amount of metal and man-hours lost to it as a result.

I'm not sure I really agree,

I think without luck or surprise they will defeat any other ships, be it CLs or DDs just look at the low rate of torpedo hits in RL battles.

I don't think BBs are really that expensive once you add up the costs of CVs or the manpower used by the lighter craft. (AM-RN figure of forty-three twin-engined medium bombers [not long-range heavy bombers] as the nearest approximation to the equivalent in cost to one battleship)

The only downsides to BB are that they don't have the range to fight CVs over the horizon and that just take to long to build quickly in wartime. This was made worse by the legacy from WNT/LNT as a lot of the BBs in WWII where very old, what would you expect from a WWI aircraft sent into battle in WWII so why was it ok for many of the BBs?

 

[michael1]

The British never intended to fight fair - .

Exactly my point, a small improvement in KGV is good but doesn't change the numbers needed, only a dramatic improvement does that.

 

[DaveBC]

I'm not sure I really agree,

I think without luck or surprise they will defeat any other ships, be it CLs or DDs just look at the low rate of torpedo hits in RL battles.

They almost certainly will. However, if you routinely send your battleships out to battle light cruisers and submarines and they're only occasionally sunk by torpedoes or run into mines, it's still a fantastical expense relative to the value of the targets.

Fortunately for the British, the Germans will obligingly sometimes do silly things like send half of their destroyers to hole up in in a single Norwegian fjord, low on fuel and ammunition, obligingly awaiting their routine destruction. For this reason I suppose it must be conceded that it's useful to keep the battleships around for knockout punches.

The only downsides to BB are that they don't have the range to fight CVs over the horizon and that just take to long to build quickly in wartime. This was made worse by the legacy from WNT/LNT as a lot of the BBs in WWII where very old, what would you expect from a WWI aircraft sent into battle in WWII so why was it ok for many of the BBs?

This I will concede and probably deserves more careful attention than I gave it. Notwithstanding the rush to "catch up" in the late 1930s, naval capital ship technology essentially stagnated during the arms control period, whereas military aviation advanced by leaps and bounds. I will accept that it is hard to say what would have happened had battleships evolved in peacetime alongside the evolution of the air forces. It's an interesting question of speculation. Perhaps this would have led in different directions than what did it occur on the pressure of first imminent war and then actual war.

 

[merlin]

Some interesting posts. So, given that going for 18" guns would have been a no, no, both from a treaty point of view, and the development time to design and build it, there was the possibility of a G3/N3 big brother version of the Nelrods. But it seems, experience with them, and a rethink, brought any new design back to a more conventional layout.
The other option that may have occurred, after reading the comments, is that after starting a couple of KGVs, the issue of the 14" gun standard goes away - why not then use up the spare 15" gun turrets i.e. an early Vanguard though maybe not so big - then go Lions!?