13 .5 inch monitors

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

  1. Dave Shoup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2019
    War was pretty certain in 1937. Likewise, if the 15/42 guns and turrets historically reused for Vanguard (and, for that matter, Roberts and Abercrombie) were in good enough shape for those three newbuilds, all laid down in 1940-41 in wartime, presumably they were in good enough shape for one or two newbuilds laid down in 1937...

    Given that the British had all of 15 capital ships at the time, of which 2-4 would be in major rebuilds through to 1941, one or two modern ships in service and operational in 1940 sounds more like a godsend than anything else.
     
  2. tigercat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2011
    Just been reading up on Singapore Strategy . Looks like the recommendations of Lord Jellicie weren't particularly well received maybe monitors could have been a compromise to the massive fleet he recommended plus lots of submarines to potentially blockade Japan .

    Also was reading Jim Crossleys book on monitors looks like the 15 inch monitors were scheduled to be sent to go to Singapore .


    November 1918, the Australian Minister for the Navy, Sir Joseph Cook, had asked Admiral Lord Jellicoe to draw up a scheme for the Empire's naval defence. Jellicoe set out on a tour of the Empire in the battlecruiser HMS New Zealand in February 1919.[25] He presented his report to the Australian government in August 1919. In a section of the report classified as secret, he advised that the interests of the British Empire and Japan would inevitably clash. He called for the creation of a British Pacific Fleet strong enough to counter the Imperial Japanese Navy, which he believed would require 8 battleships, 8 battlecruisers, 4 aircraft carriers, 10 cruisers, 40 destroyers, 36 submarines and supporting auxiliaries.[5]
     
  3. Dorknought Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2018
    No it wasn't. What needed to be done was replace the R's. The QE's were even older but were in line for rebuilds when they were really 6-7 years overdue for replacement in 1937. The WNT was OK, the LNT has a lot to answer for.

    No they weren't - low elevation, magazine arrangement wrong way around, not used or serviced for 20 years.
     
  4. Peg Leg Pom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Even if they couldn't be modernised in the time before they needed to be fitted to the new ships a 30 knot ship with those turrets is still an improvement over none or a clapped out ship only able to do 18 knots or so.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2019 at 8:33 AM
    Dave Shoup likes this.
  5. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    USS Wisconsin was mothballed from March 1958 till Recommissioned in October 1988
     
  6. TonyA Curmudgeon like, but nastier

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2015
    Location:
    South Florida
    Problem here is, we, no, let's go with, I, keep falling victim to perfect hindsight. Try as I may, keep viewing battleships as vessels that can keep up with the fast carriers, speed and endurance, even in shitty weather. And while they're doing that they need to tote around enough armament and armor to thumb their nose at Kongo's and PanzerDeathtraps, enough AAA to protect themselves while screening the carriers as well, keep the Tirpitz at anchor, and, occasionally throw some HE at some dumb son-of-a-bitch on a beach somewhere. Makes 6 15 inchers in slightly antiquated mountings seem adequate, doesn't it?
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2019 at 10:26 AM
    perfectgeneral and Errolwi like this.
  7. Peg Leg Pom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Do the 15" gun mounts actually need ALL the work done to upgrade the QE's? It seems to me the only critical as opposed to nice to have alteration is increasing the elevation. Can this be done without the other work and if so how much time does it save?
     
  8. SsgtC Ready to Call it a Day

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Little different situation. Wisconsin was largely sealed against weather and did receive limited basic maintenance (primarily against corrosion and water ingress). The turrets that were removed from some of the older British ships didn't even receive that
     
    Dorknought and Spencersj345.346 like this.
  9. Dave Shoup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2019
    Adequate enough for Renown on multiple occasions in 194-44, obviously.
     
    TonyA likes this.
  10. Dave Shoup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2019
    By 1937, the intentions of the Germans, Italians, and Japanese were hardly mysterious...

    Oddly enough, Renown and Repulse were repeatedly sent into harm's way in 1939-44, so apparently the Admiralty thought 3x2 15/42 was adequate armament for a capital ship during the war, as was using the same weapons the British chose to use for Vanguard, Abercrombie, and Roberts as new-builds. Getting one or two additional fast capital ships into service in 1940, at the same time the Queen Elizabeth class and the battlecruisers were planned for modernization makes perfect sense, certainly for an economy in the straightened circumstances of the UK in the late 1930s.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2019 at 11:41 AM
    jsb likes this.
  11. TonyA Curmudgeon like, but nastier

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2015
    Location:
    South Florida
    I think the R's he's referring to are Royal Oak, Ramillies, Rumplestiltskin, etc...
     
    Somedevil and Dorknought like this.
  12. Dave Shoup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2019
    Understood. A KGV-type design, with but with 3x2 15/42 in place of the 14/45, would have been quite effective against any European capital ship in WW II, and would have been more effective as fast carrier escorts against the IJN than the modernized QEs that spent most of 1942-43 in the Indian Ocean doing just that...
     
  13. TonyA Curmudgeon like, but nastier

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2015
    Location:
    South Florida
    No comment on Rumplestiltskin? Boy, you guys are slipping...
     
  14. Jellico Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Then someone asks, "What if they meet a Nagato?"

    And that is your basic problem. R&R had successful careers by picking their fights and staying out of trouble. They could do this because they had QEs, Nelsons, and KGVs that could be shoved into the breech instead.

    Any new build has to be a fast battleship. It has to be able to be shoved into a battle line and make a difference. A KGV hull will make it a punching bag but the lack of firepower limits it against modern opposition. And with unmodernized turrets you are stuck with 20 degrees elevation and getting done at long range.
     
  15. Colonel Grubb Tetsudo Otaku

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Location:
    Canberra
    I think it was more the case of 6x15" guns available on target are better than 0x15" guns being available on target. R&R were also still fast enough to be of use in a fast wing with Hood and/or more modern capital units as they come online.
     
    jsb, Dorknought and Spencersj345.346 like this.
  16. Dave Shoup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2019
    Saw it. Rumpelstilzchen is a good name for the Royal Hanoverian Navy. HMS Tom Tit Tot would be her RN equivalent. ;)

    Nagato and Mutsu? That's what Nelson and Rodney (and Furious, Courageous, Glorious, and Ark Royal) are for... it's what they were built for, after all.

    And a KGV equivalent (or two) with six 15/42s operational in 1940 means that Nelson and Rodney can go east, for that matter.

    Renown
    made Scharnhorst and Gneisenau turn and run on 9 April 1940, after all, and a KGV with six 15/42s would have probably been fast enough to keep up with the Germans. Presumably the British would be sharp enough to upgrade the elevation for these proto-Vanguards.

    And a KGV-equivalent design, with the only difference being the main battery, would do just that, and earlier to some degree - and with a more proven main battery - than the KGVs.
     
  17. Spencersj345.346 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Your looking back with the benefit of hindsight as related to the usefulness of battleships and the RN quite frankly could not(given its limited production capabilities as related to armor and turrets) and would not (you'd never get a capital ship that wasn't the most capable ship possible under the naval treaties past the treasury and the court of public opinion) build a ship that couldn't face its foreign contemparies in battle, besides the more shells a ship can fire the more likely it is it can hit the target hence why Renown(which was really bloody lucky when she faced the Twins in April of 1940 since 2 on 1 are never good odds especially in battlecruiser) and Repulse were given extra time and ammo for gunnery practice in order to become crack gunnery ships since otherwise they wouldn't be hitting anything.
     
    SsgtC likes this.
  18. Dave Shoup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2019
    Actually, I'm looking at it from the perspective of 1937, where the UK, in straightened economic circumstances and the aftermath of the Depression, is facing the possibility of three hostile powers, each threatening areas of very real importance to Britain's economy, and at a time where the British are facing what amounts to block obsolescence in terms of their capital ships ... and so looking at existing resources - like 62 existing twin turrets equipped with 15/42 - that could be maximized.

    The point regarding the April, 1940 engagement is that along with Renown, Whitworth's task group included NINE destroyers. Lutjens had zero, which reinforces the point that quality has a quantity all its own...

    And a - potentially - QUICK way of increasing the RN's numerical edge over all (likely and worst case) comers in this period are 35,000-ton, 30+ knot, AON against 15 inch shell, fast battleships with six 3x2 15/42s. Considering the likely opponents were: 1) two under-armed German battlecruisers; b) four under armed, under protected, and under armed Italian ships; and c) 2-4 elderly IJN battlecruisers, seems pretty clear such a Vanguard JR. would have been quite effective.
     
    jsb, TonyA and vl100butch like this.
  19. Spencersj345.346 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Yeah good luck telling the treasury and Admiralty that your proposed new capital ships can only fight ships that were either made in WW1 or are officially 9,000 tons lighter than it and will take up the turrets pits and armor needed to build ships that can, oh and it will require taking existing capital ships/monitors out of service to build more than one,I'm not saying your wrong with the benefit of hindsight as related to WW2 capital ships actual utility but how on Earth would you get the Admiralty and the treasury to sign off on it in 1937 given the UK's production constraints(plus while money was more available it wasn't unlimited) now this is the last I will speak of underguned KGV variants since I'm getting irrated how often they pop up in anything involving interwar British naval construction
     
    Coulsdon Eagle, SsgtC and Dorknought like this.
  20. Peg Leg Pom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    With 6 turrets stored it would be worth sacrificing the two Erebus class monitors as well and build two Vanguards. The monitors can be replaced by three new builds using the turrets from the training ship Iron Duke.
     
    TonyA, SsgtC and Spencersj345.346 like this.