In fairness to the Soviets they were still learning how to carrier.
Optimize the RN for WWII
- Thread starter Spencersj345.346
- Start date
split between submarines (your offensive weapon/blockading force) and a trade protection fleet to defend SLOCs. Jeep carriers would be a good all-rounder for Australia.
First up the carrier is going to take away from any RN treaty tonnage. As noted before, it is better to get your big boys out first because of build time and greater efficiency.
Next there are only 7 million Australians in 1940. There aren't the crews. Even post war Australia struggled to maintain one-and-a-half Majestics. Look what happened OTL. The cruiser force was attritted to death, with the only "new" ship being Shropshire. All the effort went into light escorts and destroyers.
Finally what is the carrier going to do? The RAN primarily operated in the Indian and Pacific Oceans and Mediteranian Sea. Submarine threat is minimal. Is a few Swordfish in one spot better for patrol than a Walrus in five spots? Its not like you can sent a Jeep carrier up against the Kido Butai.
So with a big dose of hindsight I skip the cruisers and build sloops. There are a few treaty loopholes that can be exploited there. They are within the capabilities of local manufacturers, Small crews, big hulls so they can do the patrol role in a pinch. Perfectly adequate for the Indian Ocean or putting up the coast into the Dutch East Indies or Solomons. Especially if you can get some competent shore-based torpedo bombers to provide backup.
Sure they ignore the whole, build your small stuff in the war rule, but you are not going to get a cruiser out of Australian yards after the Adelaide mess. The biggest downside is political. No glory in defense.
Then you go all Dönitz. The DNA was there after WWI, as is the example case. The Royal Navy isn't going go be impressed, but what-ya-gonna-do? They don't have to live with Japan.
If I were in charge of a WW2 Marine Expeditionary Unit, I'd gladly have one as part of my
US theory for 14,000 ton Flight Deck Cruiser
slight angled deck
View attachment 793009
use as a supersize Destroyer Leader with 24 aircraft for escorting convoys
Is that enough deck to launch and land an F4F Wildcat or F6F Hellcat? If not, not worth it. If it is, would be ¹nice to run a simulation to see how effective they would be deployed with each Large Marine Unit to have its own dedicated air support and naval gunfire support for amphibious landings.
marathag
Banned
Now that flight deck would have been about the same as the Bogue CVE class, that carried typically carried 24-30 aircraft, half held in Deck park.
The big difference between the two, is the higher speed: 33 knots vs 18 so there is a lot more wind across the deck
So Corsairs and Avengers wouldn't be a problem, since they operated from the slower Bogues
As a suggestion, what we should do is try reach a consensus. Add more ideas to this list below. And don't forget we've got a 10 - 15% increase on the budget over the years to play with.
Airpower
The biggest is - Get the FAA/RNAS back. And we assume this happens but won't probably take effect until about 1925 ish.
Capital ships
Neslon and Rodney - Use them being underweight as well as the 'spare' 3000 tons the USN also used to try get some more speed out of them, if it pushes them to 25 knots standard (as they could do that when forced) then this is good.
Courageous, Glorious and Furious - Their conversions have not yet started - Rebuild them to be a uniform class and have a full length flight deck forwards
Give up as many 13.5-inch gunned ships as needed to retain Tiger as a 4th member of the Battlecruiser squadron.
Hood, Renown and Repulse to be overhauled in the 30's to OTL Renown standards.
QE's all to be at least overhauled to Warspite standards
R Class to be overhauled to Royal Oak standards.
Cruisers
County Class - remove the requirement for the high angle firing capability on the 8-inch guns to reduce gun mount size, complexity and cost.
Infrastructure
Work with the RAF to have joint training facilities for RAF and RNAS/FAA as well as joint airframe/engine development to reduce costs for both services.
Try to retain the armour production/gun pits that were closed OTL to prevent future bottlenecks.
Look at the introduction of welding at Royal Dockyards
Subsidies for other docks to improve machinery/plant/tools.
Weapons
Get the Pom-Pom mount developed sooner instead of 1927 with a higher muzzle velocity, larger shell and tracer as well as working to try and improve the mount design and save weight. Also produce a dual and quad mount.
Destroyer guns - Future build destroyers are to have a 4.5-inch round in a mount that is capable of HA fire. Do not use fixed rounds. A heavier AA mount could have 4.7-inch guns in a similar mount with HA fire but focusing on having as few different shell types and calibers as possible to ease logistics and improve production.
ASW - Continue and fund research of ahead throwing weapons for ASW work.
Soft Factors
Future capital ships (cruisers and above) to have airconditioning throughout and proper messing facilities and sleeping quarters.
Airpower
The biggest is - Get the FAA/RNAS back. And we assume this happens but won't probably take effect until about 1925 ish.
Capital ships
Neslon and Rodney - Use them being underweight as well as the 'spare' 3000 tons the USN also used to try get some more speed out of them, if it pushes them to 25 knots standard (as they could do that when forced) then this is good.
Courageous, Glorious and Furious - Their conversions have not yet started - Rebuild them to be a uniform class and have a full length flight deck forwards
Give up as many 13.5-inch gunned ships as needed to retain Tiger as a 4th member of the Battlecruiser squadron.
Hood, Renown and Repulse to be overhauled in the 30's to OTL Renown standards.
QE's all to be at least overhauled to Warspite standards
R Class to be overhauled to Royal Oak standards.
Cruisers
County Class - remove the requirement for the high angle firing capability on the 8-inch guns to reduce gun mount size, complexity and cost.
Infrastructure
Work with the RAF to have joint training facilities for RAF and RNAS/FAA as well as joint airframe/engine development to reduce costs for both services.
Try to retain the armour production/gun pits that were closed OTL to prevent future bottlenecks.
Look at the introduction of welding at Royal Dockyards
Subsidies for other docks to improve machinery/plant/tools.
Weapons
Get the Pom-Pom mount developed sooner instead of 1927 with a higher muzzle velocity, larger shell and tracer as well as working to try and improve the mount design and save weight. Also produce a dual and quad mount.
Destroyer guns - Future build destroyers are to have a 4.5-inch round in a mount that is capable of HA fire. Do not use fixed rounds. A heavier AA mount could have 4.7-inch guns in a similar mount with HA fire but focusing on having as few different shell types and calibers as possible to ease logistics and improve production.
ASW - Continue and fund research of ahead throwing weapons for ASW work.
Soft Factors
Future capital ships (cruisers and above) to have airconditioning throughout and proper messing facilities and sleeping quarters.
Last edited:
When Rearmament begins in earnest, use the 4.5 incher as the secondary armament for all capital ships to ease logistics and save weight.
A KGV with 3x3 15 inchers and a 30kt top speed will ruin anyone's day.
Maybe design a lighter 8 inch gun turret that's actually lighter than it's predecessor so you can (re)build armoured 8 inch gunned cruisers.
A KGV with 3x3 15 inchers and a 30kt top speed will ruin anyone's day.
Maybe design a lighter 8 inch gun turret that's actually lighter than it's predecessor so you can (re)build armoured 8 inch gunned cruisers.
Last edited:
Part of Post 12.
Based on the above.
However, the twin 4.5" Mk II turrets might not have been ready in time for them to be installed on Malaya, Repulse & Warspite and definitely won't be ready to be fitted to Barham as part of her 1930-33 refit. The entry on the 4.5"/45 QF Marks I, III and IV guns on the Naval Weapons website says development began in about 1935 and service entry was in 1938 but that was the twin Mk III mounting, the first twin Mk II mountings to go into service were those on Renown in 1939.
Fortunately, the Admiralty has more money to spend on the development of weapons from mid-1923 ITTL and the OP allows the use of future knowledge so development of the guns and mountings can be begun sooner.
I very much doubt that it would have been possible to have Hood's refit begin before September 1939 without sacrificing the refit of Queen Elizabeth, Renown or Valiant because too many capital ships would be out of service. That is, unless the refits of Repulse is brought forward to 1930-34 and Renown is brought forward to 1934-37 which would allow Hood to be refitted 1937-40. However, as the estimated cost of Hood's refit was 60% of the estimated cost of a new 35,000 ton battleship at a time when there were no legal restrictions on building new battleships and the refit would take as long as it would take to build a new ship the money would have been better spent on a new ship.
Another Part of Post 207.
As the refits of Barham, Malaya & Repulse take place 1930-37 and so do some of the refits of the Royal Sovereigns will that save a few gun pits?
If it helps rebuild the turrets removed from Courageous & Glorious between 1925 & 1930 and then use them in the first round of a game of "pass the turrets". Swap them with the turrets in Barham as part of her 1930-33 refit. The turrets taken form Barham are refurbished 1930-33 and then swapped with Malaya's as part of her 1934-37 refit. And so on.
Part of Post 207.
FWIW I agree with all of the above.
Refits of the Queen Elizabeth, Royal Sovereign and Renown classes 1918-41.
(Arranged in Order of the Year Each Refit Commenced and with the Costs where I know them.)
Plus the Projected Cost & Duration of the Planned Modernisation of Hood.
This is the same information arranged by class and then by the year each refit commenced.
(Arranged in Order of the Year Each Refit Commenced and with the Costs where I know them.)
Plus the Projected Cost & Duration of the Planned Modernisation of Hood.
This is the same information arranged by class and then by the year each refit commenced.
Based on the above.
- My estimate of the extra cost to refit Barham 1930-33 & Malaya 1934-37 to the same standard as Warspite in 1937 and to refit Repulse 1932-36 to the same standard as Renown in 1939 is £5,547,297.
- My estimate of the extra cost to refit Barham 1930-33, Malaya 1934-37 & Warspite 1934-37 to the same standard as Valiant in 1939 and to refit Repulse 1932-36 to the same standard as Renown in 1939 is £7,371,297.
However, the twin 4.5" Mk II turrets might not have been ready in time for them to be installed on Malaya, Repulse & Warspite and definitely won't be ready to be fitted to Barham as part of her 1930-33 refit. The entry on the 4.5"/45 QF Marks I, III and IV guns on the Naval Weapons website says development began in about 1935 and service entry was in 1938 but that was the twin Mk III mounting, the first twin Mk II mountings to go into service were those on Renown in 1939.
Fortunately, the Admiralty has more money to spend on the development of weapons from mid-1923 ITTL and the OP allows the use of future knowledge so development of the guns and mountings can be begun sooner.
I very much doubt that it would have been possible to have Hood's refit begin before September 1939 without sacrificing the refit of Queen Elizabeth, Renown or Valiant because too many capital ships would be out of service. That is, unless the refits of Repulse is brought forward to 1930-34 and Renown is brought forward to 1934-37 which would allow Hood to be refitted 1937-40. However, as the estimated cost of Hood's refit was 60% of the estimated cost of a new 35,000 ton battleship at a time when there were no legal restrictions on building new battleships and the refit would take as long as it would take to build a new ship the money would have been better spent on a new ship.
Another Part of Post 207.
Queen Elizabeth, Renown, Valiant & Warspite had the elevations of their 15" guns increased from 20 to 30 degrees as part of their refits IOTL and Barham, Malaya & Repulse will have the elevations of their 15" guns increased from 20 to 30 degrees as part of their refits ITTL and while we're at it have the elevations of the Royal Sovereigns 15" guns increased from 20 to 30 degrees as part of their 1930s refits as well.
As the refits of Barham, Malaya & Repulse take place 1930-37 and so do some of the refits of the Royal Sovereigns will that save a few gun pits?
If it helps rebuild the turrets removed from Courageous & Glorious between 1925 & 1930 and then use them in the first round of a game of "pass the turrets". Swap them with the turrets in Barham as part of her 1930-33 refit. The turrets taken form Barham are refurbished 1930-33 and then swapped with Malaya's as part of her 1934-37 refit. And so on.
Last edited:
Is the difference not that once you are seriously thinking you might fire off your (nuclear) missile weapons (ie the guns) of the hybrid in a few short salvoes, then it doesn't matter about the protection or the vulnerability of the flight deck anyway?
The main issue with 30s hybrids is that they are bad guns ships as they would likely burn or explode when they got into a gun fight, so they will probably try and simply choose to stay at over the horizon range and just be weaker than they could have been pure carriers?
Last edited:
Is it not, 6000t.................... ie USN "interpreted" it as 3000t & 3000t for each this would be very fun if RN then asked them if they could do like wise for N&R or told them to cut Lex and Sara down....... (this would be basically impossible with massive rebuild)
On 35+6K 41,000t and new build so not Hood, you can build a cut down G3 more than N&R, so we are talking a fast BB maybe 29Kn? With 9 16" guns and ideally go for 4.7" in the OTL 6" mounts as your 2ndary guns, so you can make then DP later? USN/IJN would be very unhappy..... This makes a KM PB much less happy about its life, as RN now has N&R, H, R&R, T ie 50% more fast ships over OTL.....
Last edited:
No it was 3000 tons of extra stuff on each ship which is how the USN interpreted the WNT. You can then factor in that the Nelrods were 1,700 tons underweight so you get an extra 4,700 tons to play with in the design. And as we're in 1923, they've only been laid down and had an over long building period so you could probably squeeze some more engines in there. Don't forget, we've missed the WNT, so we can't affect that and both Nelson and Rodney have been ordered and paid for and are under construction having been laid down in 22, so we can't do a complete halt and redesign.
marathag
Banned
What it does is give the ships all weather defense and offense(guns), since planes would not be gaining the first radar sets in the 1930s.
Nine 6" on the USN type is nothing to sneeze at for a the typical commerce raider expected at that time.
The last Hermaphrodites the USN dabbled with in 1939, had a single 8" triple and more 5" turrets, with what I suspect better underwater protection, and the knowledge of having a better airwing than Martin T4M Torpedo planes and Curtiss F6C Hawks of the early '30s.
The point is it's worse than splitting it on two smaller ships that can split up, ie a CVE/CVL and a small CL. If you only want to defeat a commerce raider then an 6000" 6x6" Cl will do it and escort your main CVL.
You could easily argue the Hood's a more valuable unit than a QE or R, so if its a case of having to choose between Malaya and Hood getting a refit, Hood every time. Assuming we've kept the Tiger you could use her as a 'fill in' for the Hood whilst she goes in at about 1936 with the plan being to retire and scrap Tiger once the Hood comes out of refit. Until then she's given a very modest overhaul (Tiger) and keeps the BCS at 3 ships.
With the more advanced development of naval weapons and a focus on standarisation I would imagine that the 4.5 would probably come along a fair bit earlier, if not in the OTL Below Deck mount for battleships then something like it. All the money invested in the mid to late 20's would help.
i wonder if you could order all the long lead for a couple capital ships in say 1935 and have the first 2 KGV equivalents done by WWII breaking out. technically its legal under the treaties so long as you aren't laying down the hulls before the build holiday ends right?
What you mean like order the guns and say main belt as well as the fire control system ahead of time and have them in storage waiting? In theory that's fine, diplomatically its what would politely be called a 'dick move' but by 1935 no one's going to complain about it anyhow.
After all these guns are all for ships in service right? So's the armour belt...honest guv.
hell given armor was a fair bit better by 1935 than when the armor for say the QEs was originally ordered you could actually probably say that with a straight face. ditto the 15"/45.
marathag
Banned
The thing is, you have just one set of machinery and 900 men doing the job of two sets of machinery with 2100 men with a Brooklyn class/Independence team-up
The difference for escorting a convoy with 24 aircraft hermaphrodite vs a 33 aircraft CVL is minor, while the 6 extra 6" tubes would rarely make a difference of a CL with slightly more armor,, not being present
I did write.
I think it's already been suggested that the RN stick to the 4.7" or introduce the 4.5" sooner and that the various marks of 4.5" or 4.7" be capable of using the same ammunition.
A good POD for the latter would be mid-1923 the only RN ships in service that had 4.7" guns were the Modified W class destroyers and there might be time to have the prototype A class destroyers, Adventure, Albatross, Nelson, Rodney, Courageous and Glorious armed with 4.5" guns instead of a 4.7" weapons.
I was also going to suggest that development of the 4.5"/45 QF Marks I, III and IV begin in 1931 and be developed instead of the 5.1" gun of OTL. That means the twin 4.5" Mk II (or something like it) would be ready in time to be fitted to Malaya, Repulse and Warspite, but not Barham and it's iffy for Repulse because her refit began in 1932.
On the subject of guns of the same calibre being able to fire the same ammunition it is true that the 15" Mk II gun proposed for what became the King George V class and the 15" Mk I fitted to the Queen Elizabeth to Hood classes couldn't use each other's ammunition? If it is that's something that must be avoided unless it significantly degrades the performance of the Mk II.
EDIT 20:00 GMT 02.12.2022
I though the POD in the Opening Post was mid-1923. I've just noticed that it's the beginning of 1923. That makes it easier to have the prototype A class destroyers, Adventure, Albatross, Nelson, Rodney, Courageous and Glorious armed with 4.5" guns instead of a 4.7" weapons.
Last edited: