13 .5 inch monitors

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by tigercat, Oct 8, 2019.

  1. tigercat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2011
    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 .
     
  2. Mad Bad Rabbit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    [ thought this was a spam for computer monitors, nope, carry on... ]
     
  3. Peg Leg Pom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Plus Gib, Malta, Aden, Cape Town, Darwin.
     
  4. tigercat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2011

    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
     
  5. CV12Hornet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2013
    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.
     
    jsb, Thoresby, TeePee and 2 others like this.
  6. tigercat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2011
    Could you not get a contribution similar to HMS Malaya from countries ports they're meant to be guarding ?
     
    perfectgeneral likes this.
  7. Colonel Grubb Tetsudo Otaku

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Location:
    Canberra
    Seems overkill for a town in a territory with a population of 3,867 (1921 Census), a rail-head, a crap doglegged wharf and little strategic relevance.:coldsweat:
     
    TeePee likes this.
  8. Peg Leg Pom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    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.
     
  9. tigercat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2011
    ah ok might have got a little carried away with idea of giving them all a couple of monitors.
     
    TeePee likes this.
  10. I want to learn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2013
    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.
     
    Barry Bull likes this.
  11. Colonel Grubb Tetsudo Otaku

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Location:
    Canberra
    In theory yes, however the series of interwar Australian governments say no. And then doubles down on that no.
     
  12. Peg Leg Pom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Just a suggestion.

    upload_2019-10-8_23-23-3.png
     
  13. Colonel Grubb Tetsudo Otaku

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Location:
    Canberra
    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.
     
  14. Father Maryland Enemy of Neo Secesh Everywhere

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Location:
    The Grand Duchy of the Chesapeake
    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.
     
  15. Errolwi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Location:
    Auckland, NZ
    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?
     
    Thoresby likes this.
  16. Peg Leg Pom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    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.
     
    Oldbill likes this.
  17. Errolwi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Location:
    Auckland, NZ
    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.
     
    Colonel Grubb likes this.
  18. WaterproofPotatoes #TeamMahan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    You could even save some money on the torpedo defences. A crushing-tube system is marginally/no more effective than a typical liquid-void system, but it is more expensive and laborious to install and repair.
     
  19. Dorknought Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2018
    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’.
     
  20. TonyA Curmudgeon like, but nastier

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2015
    Location:
    South Florida
    SO, really large monitors. If dreadnoughts are BB and the old stuff is B, that would make these, perhaps, BM's?