Deep refitting British Capital Ships in the 30s

Cryhavoc101

michael1 said:
Under the LNT the ships retired were
United States:
  • "Florida".
  • "Utah".
  • "Arkansas" or "Wyoming".
United Kingdom:
  • "Benbow".
  • "Iron Duke".
  • "Marlborough".
  • "Emperor of India".
  • "Tiger".
Japan:
  • "Hiyei".
so roughly leaving them at 5:5:3 strength. Given these were the agreed ratios the British really didn't have much to bargain with.

I'd agree though that the LNT was worse for the British than the WNT had been in a number of ways:
1. Limitations on the number of cruisers affected the British more than other countries (although it's debatable how much this actually affected the building programme)
2. Extending the building holiday meant a greater run down in building capacity in Britain than abroad
3. Extending the building holiday meant a greater end of life block replacement problem for the British because all their retained ships were ordered in a very short period, basically the 3 years worth of estimates 1912-4, apart from the Hood, Nelson and Rodney.

The LNT may well have been a mistake (unlike the WNT) but, as I said, major changes would lead to many butterflies. Not least in Anglo-American relations, which were probably at their interwar nadir before it due to the failure of the 1927 Geneva Naval conference, and were repaired by it before being affected by the great depression, the return of the war debts issue, protectionism and the mutual sense of betrayal over how to deal with the Manchurian crisis.
Click to expand...

So this is a great example - of the 4 US Ships

Arkansas and Wyoming both served in WW2

Utah was a remote controlled target ship (sunk during the IJN Air Attack on Pearl Harbour) and only Florida of the 4 was scrapped after the 1st LNT

As for Japan Hiyei - which I presume you mean is Hiei - was 'demilitirised' between 1929 and 1937 and then rebuilt as a fast BB like her sisters

So between them the USA and Japan scrapped 1 ship post 1st LNT

Meanwhile the UK is scrapping more ships while having an older average fleet than both Japan and the USA

I think that there was more wriggle room for them to retain several vessels into the 30s while the older vessels were being refitted.
 
SsgtC

SsgtC

Banned
Cryhavoc101 said:
So this is a great example - of the 4 US Ships

Arkansas and Wyoming both served in WW2

Utah was a remote controlled target ship (sunk during the IJN Air Attack on Pearl Harbour) and only Florida of the 4 was scrapped after the 1st LNT

As for Japan Hiyei - which I presume you mean is Hiei - was 'demilitirised' between 1929 and 1937 and then rebuilt as a fast BB like her sisters

So between them the USA and Japan scrapped 1 ship post 1st LNT

Meanwhile the UK is scrapping more ships while having an older average fleet than both Japan and the USA

I think that there was more wriggle room for them to retain several vessels into the 30s while the older vessels were being refitted.
Click to expand...
You need to go a little deeper. Wyoming had half her main battery removed in 1931. Along with her torpedo bulges and side belt armor. She was no longer capable of fighting as a battleship. She was used strictly as a training ship. And in 1944 her remaining 12" guns were removed and she was used as an anti-aircraft training ship. So, yes. She technically served in WWII. But not as a fighting ship.

Utah also had all of her main battery removed along with the torpedo bulges and belt armor. She was literally used as a target ship (hence the remote control). Later she was also used as an AA training ship. But like Wyoming, she was not a fighting ship.

The IJN was the only one to out and out violate the treaty by rearming Hiei.

There was no mechanism in the treaty to maintain fully armed and armored battleships as "spares" to be used when another was being overhauled. To do that, you need to change the treaty. And if you're going to do that, you may as well just let the building holiday expire and build new ships instead of overhauling 20 year old ones
 

weasel_airlift

Cryhavoc101 said:
Arkansas and Wyoming both served in WW2
Click to expand...

Wyoming was a gunnery training ship, same as Iron Duke I believe. To that point she had some armor and main guns removed, also like Iron Duke. Neither counted as active warships for the purposes of treaties.

Utah as a target ship, was not active.

Arkansas I believe was slated for decommissioning had war not intervened, once the first of the new generation of battleships were commissioned.

Edit: Ninja'd
 

michael1

weasel_airlift said:
Wyoming was a gunnery training ship, same as Iron Duke I believe. To that point she had some armor and main guns removed, also like Iron Duke. Neither counted as active warships for the purposes of treaties.

Utah as a target ship, was not active.

Arkansas I believe was slated for decommissioning had war not intervened, once the first of the new generation of battleships were commissioned.

Edit: Ninja'd
Click to expand...
HMS Centurion fulfilled a similar role to Utah and was retained on the same basis
 

1Big Rich

Cryhavoc101 said:
Cheers - I only went through all of the Japanese BB classes looking for her - seems like they were the only ones who did!
Click to expand...

A similar oddity; the initial draft has the US retaining Maryland, Japan Nagato, and the RN Hood. Japan had paid for Mutsu through public subscription, and they weren't about to squander all the good-will that garnered. So when they refused to give her up, the RN got the option for two ships (that became Nelson and Rodney) and the US was allowed to build "two more West Virginias". Not two more Marylands, but two more West Virginias.....
 

weasel_airlift

1Big Rich said:
A similar oddity; the initial draft has the US retaining Maryland, Japan Nagato, and the RN Hood. Japan had paid for Mutsu through public subscription, and they weren't about to squander all the good-will that garnered. So when they refused to give her up, the RN got the option for two ships (that became Nelson and Rodney) and the US was allowed to build "two more West Virginias". Not two more Marylands, but two more West Virginias.....
Click to expand...

Odd considering that they were Colorado class.
 

1Big Rich

weasel_airlift said:
Odd considering that they were Colorado class.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! If they were going to call the class by the name of one of the ships to be scrapped, why not the name ship of the class?!?!?!

If they HAD called them 'Marylands', I would understand, as she was already selected to be the sole 16in US ship. But instead they went to the other end of the hull-number sequence and plucked "West Virginia"!
 
SsgtC

SsgtC

Banned
1Big Rich said:
EXACTLY! If they were going to call the class by the name of one of the ships to be scrapped, why not the name ship of the class?!?!?!

If they HAD called them 'Marylands', I would understand, as she was already selected to be the sole 16in US ship. But instead they went to the other end of the hull-number sequence and plucked "West Virginia"!
Click to expand...
Just speculating, but maybe they meant it to say that the US could complete the ships up to West Virginia?
 

Riain

Banned
Coming in late, my suggestion would be a limited bulk upgrade to the 5 R class first, after the wnt limits on turret elevation were dropped in 1930 but before Lion and the other 1 or 2 13.5" ships were scrapped. To make it simple and cheap, considering the limitations of these ships, perhaps the elevation could be limited to 25 degrees or whatever rather than the full 30.

Once these are out of the way and in full commision the other ships can be done on a rolling schedule from 1932 as depression relief, getting the full works.
 

PSL

Seem to remember reading Somewhere the cost of these Italian rebuilds was leveraged out of foreign aid supplied by the Americans.
 

Cryhavoc101

Riain said:
Coming in late, my suggestion would be a limited bulk upgrade to the 5 R class first, after the wnt limits on turret elevation were dropped in 1930 but before Lion and the other 1 or 2 13.5" ships were scrapped. To make it simple and cheap, considering the limitations of these ships, perhaps the elevation could be limited to 25 degrees or whatever rather than the full 30.

Once these are out of the way and in full commision the other ships can be done on a rolling schedule from 1932 as depression relief, getting the full works.
Click to expand...

The modification of the MK1 twin 15" turret to Mk1'N' standard involved quite a lot of changes

Firstly the powder and shell magazines were reversed with the powder now at the bottom of the turret and therefore far more protected verse shellfire

Secondly the elevation of the guns was increased from 20 degrees to 30 degrees

There were other changes made ie allowing the superfiring guns to be able to shoot over the forward and rear most turrets without disabling the crews for example.

Now one of the problems with all this was that Britain had in the late 20s 18 large gun pits capable of building new large turrets or modifying existing ones

Bt the early 30s - 9 were left (the other 9 had been filled with concrete!) and this limited the number of turrets that could be built or midified at any given time

So among other things an earlier modification of the turrets as you have suggested probably means that those other 9 large gun pits are kept in service and this along with the retention of other OTL lapsed industries (such as the ability to produce armour plate) could easily pay dividends later on.
 

naraic

Does anyone know if there was anyone making the argument in the early or mid thirties that the next generation of royal navy capital ships should be 20-24 knots?

If I am right and there was not I do not understand why rebuilds were done for Battleships rather than Battlecruisers as the Battlecruiser could at least be expected to operate at fleet speed with the next generation.

Was there concern that Britain needed fast capital ships in service rather than in refit in order to protect the main routes into the Atlantic from raiders. If so Britain should have attempted to drag out the service life of HMS Tiger as cover.
 
SsgtC

SsgtC

Banned
naraic said:
Does anyone know if there was anyone making the argument in the early or mid thirties that the next generation of royal navy capital ships should be 20-24 knots?

If I am right and there was not I do not understand why rebuilds were done for Battleships rather than Battlecruisers as the Battlecruiser could at least be expected to operate at fleet speed with the next generation.

Was there concern that Britain needed fast capital ships in service rather than in refit in order to protect the main routes into the Atlantic from raiders. If so Britain should have attempted to drag out the service life of HMS Tiger as cover.
Click to expand...
Not really. Look at the rebuild they gave Renown. The QEs were simply deemed more valuable. That and the Hood, Renown and Repulse were all newer than the battleships. It simply made more sense to rebuild the older QEs first
 

fastmongrel

naraic said:
Was there concern that Britain needed fast capital ships in service rather than in refit in order to protect the main routes into the Atlantic from raiders. If so Britain should have attempted to drag out the service life of HMS Tiger as cover.
Click to expand...

Tiger has always been one of my favourite ships and a refit would have given the RN a useful Pocket Battleship and Heavy cruiser killer. I did a very crude drawing of what a modified Tiger might have come out as. Losing Q gun mount to fit a hangar for Seaplanes.
HMS Tiger (1941) by Stuart, on Flickr

The KGVs were often referred to by the RN as Battlecruisers
 
Last edited:

naraic

fastmongrel said:
Tiger has always been one of my favourite ships and a refit would have given the RN a useful Pocket Battleship and Heavy cruiser killer. I did a very crude drawing of what a modified Tiger might have come out as. Losing Q gun mount to fit a hangar for Seaplanes.
HMS Tiger (1941) by Stuart, on Flickr

The KGVs were often referred to by the RN as Battlecruisers
Click to expand...
Personally I'd not expect Tiger to see anything as substantial as a major refit. My thinking is more along the lines to keep her in service to mid 30s to provide a fast cover ship while a battlecruiser is in refit.
SsgtC said:
Not really. Look at the rebuild they gave Renown. The QEs were simply deemed more valuable. That and the Hood, Renown and Repulse were all newer than the battleships. It simply made more sense to rebuild the older QEs first
Click to expand...
Good point rebuilding older ships first makes sense.
 

Jellico

At the end of the day the UK has 3 "useful Pocket Battleship and Heavy cruiser killer"s. France has another 2.

With the exception of the super secret Nagatos the Nelsons and QEs are the fastest battleships in the world.

Fast battleships have been coming since HMS Hood and the UK have wanted the type since HMS Hood, but what is the need? The rest of the world needs to catch up to the RN before the RN has to move.
 

Cryhavoc101

naraic said:
Does anyone know if there was anyone making the argument in the early or mid thirties that the next generation of royal navy capital ships should be 20-24 knots?

If I am right and there was not I do not understand why rebuilds were done for Battleships rather than Battlecruisers as the Battlecruiser could at least be expected to operate at fleet speed with the next generation.

Was there concern that Britain needed fast capital ships in service rather than in refit in order to protect the main routes into the Atlantic from raiders. If so Britain should have attempted to drag out the service life of HMS Tiger as cover.
Click to expand...

Several of the other warships had been given comprehensive refits prior to 33 - just not to the level of Warspite etc

For example Repulse
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top