13 .5 inch monitors

[Spencersj345.346]

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.

I would assume that the RN is throwing the treaty displacement and gun size limits out of a window and is building two of these and 4 modified(you can do a lot with 5,000 or so extra tons) KGVs with a quad B turret( as for getting armor you need, maybe order it from the US amd not the Czechs as you will almost certainly get it by the time WW2 kicks off and it definitely won't fall into German hands sure it might cost a bit more but its worth actually getting it) since you won't be getting the Lions at all unless the war is delayed by at least a year so 6 capital ships is probably all you're going to get. Also what ever happened to Furious's turrets since they were almost certainly modified 15" twin turrets so it might be possible to retrofit them back to being 15" twins so you wouldn't have to scrap the Erebus class ships.

 

[tigercat]

Jim Crosseley suggests monitors would have been useful for Americans in their Pacific island hopping campaign . He argues they could have got closer inshore and we're more expendable and would have had less crew .

With a better hull form and more speed . They could have maybe sacrificed the New York Class

 

[tigercat]

Shame nothing was done with Furious ' 18 inch .

18 inch armed Monitor maybe ?

 

[Dave Shoup]

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

Well, since there weren't any "new" larger capital ships in commission in 1937 in any of the potential enemy navies, it's actually a perfectly reasonable option.

 

[Dorknought]

USS Wisconsin was mothballed from March 1958 till Recommissioned in October 1988

Well in the case of transferring Marshall Soult's turret from Portsmouth to Clydebank for the new built HMS Roberts, the keys and plates had fused together after 25 years in the weather at Chatham so the turret had to placed on the transport's deck not in the hold as planned. The transport left in calm weather but during a storm the crew abandoned ship because the load on deck shifted. Fortunately the ship was still afloat the next morning and the crew reboarded. At Clydebank there were only 3 cranes that could lift the load but no one wanted this fused 250ton lump on their quay in their work area for months while it was disassembled. Something that was scheduled to take weeks took months.

Modifications included eyelids for the guns so the trunions could be lifted higher for greater elevation:

 

[Dorknought]

Well, since there weren't any "new" larger capital ships in commission in 1937 in any of the potential enemy navies, it's actually a perfectly reasonable option.

No, in 1937 the RN and most other navies suspected that the Japanese were building significantly bigger than 35,000 tons. Why else would you withdraw from a limitations treaty.

 

[Dorknought]

The monitors can be replaced by three new builds using the turrets from the training ship Iron Duke.

They did think of using 13.5" turrets from Tiger when there was a delay with refitting the 15" for the new monitors but they found that this would take just as long and they had no ammunition, it would have to be manufactured specially for only 4 guns in the fleet.

 

[tigercat]

So HMS Robert's could have ended up a toothless Terror if the Transport had foundered

 

[tigercat]

So any 13 5 inch monitors would need to be built a lot earlier to guarantee ammo supply by ww2

 

[Dorknought]

So HMS Robert's could have ended up a toothless Terror if the Transport had foundered

Yes.

So any 13 5 inch monitors would need to be built a lot earlier to guarantee ammo supply by ww2

Yes.

 

[Dorknought]

To perhaps meet Dave's penchant for reusing 15" turrets:
Design KGV and PoW as 10 14" in a Nevada style layout (8 new turrets ordered). Dump aircraft arrangements to save length. Make all barbettes the same size, B and X turrets are just roomier with only 2 guns to save weight. Make sure you can drop in 15" twins if needed for a light weight Vanguard. DoY and Anson are ordered to same design but are reusing 15" turrets (2 Glorious, 2 Courageous, 2 Terror, 2 Marshal Soult). After escalation clause Howe becomes the first Lion with triple 16" guns and DoY and Anson are now 'legal'. KGV and PoW can be refitted with ex Revenge class turrets if war doesn't break out.

 

[sts-200]

Shame nothing was done with Furious ' 18 inch .

18 inch armed Monitor maybe ?

Two of those 18" guns were installed on monitors during the Great War. Both saw limited action right at the end.
By the 2nd WW, all the guns had either been scrapped or converted to 16" years earlier and used for development.

 

[sts-200]

I'm not convinced about recycling the existing 13.5" turrets, as they were limited to 20-degrees and 4-crh shells.
They had already used various tricks to squeeze the 13.5" gun into almost the same size turret as the 12" guns used. Modifications such as deepening gun wells and allowing for longer shells might therefore be harder to fit in.
I'm not saying it would have been impossible (I don't have the plans to comment one way or the other), but it sounds more difficult than it was with the roomier 15" turrets, for a less satisfactory result.

 

[TonyA]

They did think of using 13.5" turrets from Tiger when there was a delay with refitting the 15" for the new monitors but they found that this would take just as long and they had no ammunition, it would have to be manufactured specially for only 4 guns in the fleet.

Well, so much for that idea...

 

[tigercat]

It's just a matter of timing which is why I'm advocating an earlier POD

 

[Dave Shoup]

No, in 1937 the RN and most other navies suspected that the Japanese were building significantly bigger than 35,000 tons. Why else would you withdraw from a limitations treaty.

True. Getting one or two modern, fast battleships in to service early, even armed with "their great aunt's teeth" would have made sense, for exactly that reason.

 

[marathag]

No, in 1937 the RN and most other navies suspected that the Japanese were building significantly bigger than 35,000 tons. Why else would you withdraw from a limitations treaty.

Though they were expecting something Bismarck sized with 16" guns behind those screens at Kure Arsenal by Hiroshima