2nd LNT / RN / questions&discussion

Until the Treaty was abandoned the RN and USN were, in major surface combatants, exactly equal (rather the point of the Treaty actually), with the IJN 60% of their size.

As far as being smaller - at the end of the construction cycle, I was unaware of the fact that the RN commissioned 22 CV, 9 CVL, 10 fast BB, 53 CA/CL, 350 destroyers, 199 DDE, 96 FF, and 247 ocean-going SS. This of course, does not include roughly 250 canceled ships, ~70 ships completed AFTER the war, etc.

I would also have to disagree with this second statement. Undoubtedly the CO of Kirishima would have been vastly happier to have had something a touch larger than Vickers built 14"/45, especially when scoring hits on South Dakota. The CO of PoW at Denmark Strait might just have stopped Bismarck with 16"/45 Mark IV AP shells (with 800 pounds more weight per shell, greater penetration, better range) rather than having to break off after her slugging match (a 16" balanced design would also likely have shed both heavy hull hits, including the luckily defective 15" round that penetrated to the boiler room bulkhead but failed to explode.

KGV (14") and Rodney (light 16") seemed to have managed to stop Bismark pretty comprehensively...:p
 
Despite a lot of looking, I've never found the real reason why they changed at the last minute from 9x15 to 10x14.
DK Brown has it as:
"On 20 September 1935 the paper was discussed by the Sea Lords who decided on nine 15in guns and 29kts. In October it was learned that the USA would agree to a 14in limit on guns provided that Japan agreed. Since it was hoped to order the guns for the first two battleships before the end of 1935 a decision had to be made very quickly. On 10 October, the Sea Lords decided on twelve 14in and 28kts". (Nelson to Vanguard, p.28)

in fact its probably cheaper (only one type of turret to design and build)
The plan was to only have one type of turret. DK Brown again:

"To keep within the 35,000-ton limit the thickness of the deck was reduced by 1/2in and the upper belt by 1in... The reduction in thickness was not liked and, after discussion of various alternatives, it was agreed to reduce the main armament to ten 14in guns. There was an interesting discussion, recorded in Pengelly's work book, as to the position for the twin mounting. This note shows one example of the numerous interacting factors in a design.
Y- Weight aft reduced, lowering docking stress; less blast on aircraft and hanger; shell rooms easier.
A- Move citadel forward and improve arrangement at Y; reduce sagging stress; can fine lines forward.
B- Move citadel forward; greatest weight saving; less blast on bridge"

(Nelson to Vanguard, p.29)
 
DK Brown has it as:
"On 20 September 1935 the paper was discussed by the Sea Lords who decided on nine 15in guns and 29kts. In October it was learned that the USA would agree to a 14in limit on guns provided that Japan agreed. Since it was hoped to order the guns for the first two battleships before the end of 1935 a decision had to be made very quickly. On 10 October, the Sea Lords decided on twelve 14in and 28kts". (Nelson to Vanguard, p.28)


The plan was to only have one type of turret. DK Brown again:

"To keep within the 35,000-ton limit the thickness of the deck was reduced by 1/2in and the upper belt by 1in... The reduction in thickness was not liked and, after discussion of various alternatives, it was agreed to reduce the main armament to ten 14in guns. There was an interesting discussion, recorded in Pengelly's work book, as to the position for the twin mounting. This note shows one example of the numerous interacting factors in a design.
Y- Weight aft reduced, lowering docking stress; less blast on aircraft and hanger; shell rooms easier.
A- Move citadel forward and improve arrangement at Y; reduce sagging stress; can fine lines forward.
B- Move citadel forward; greatest weight saving; less blast on bridge"

(Nelson to Vanguard, p.29)

Yeah - a 'minor' KGV POD is that the British don't reduce either the armour or the number of guns - keeping 12 x 14" on 3 Quads with the ships main armour designed to take on 15" armed vessels and instead up the design weight accordingly.

One of my understandings of the KGV's is that the Twin turret design delayed the completion of the ships. Had they used 3 'Common' Quads then this particular delay does not happen.
 
It would be interesting to examine the USN numbers without the fall of France and the RN numbers carried forward to the end of the 1942 construction period. That would be rather closer, with the advantages shared across various categories given different needs and specializations.

For the RN, it depends how far back we stretch the construction cycle and how we factor in the cancellations and delays to many ships because of the Fall of France panic, the requirements of the Battle of the Atlantic and being able to count on the USN as an Allied fleet. Many ships that were finished postwar could have been completed in wartime with differing priorities.

KGVs with 15" or 16" guns would not take world-breaking PODs and is technically doable, with the latter putting them rather much on the level with the 2 North Carolinas and 4 Sodaks.

There have been a fair few timelines where the RN carrier programme is tweaked, but none that I can recollect that did the same thing to the battleship programme.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
KGV (14") and Rodney (light 16") seemed to have managed to stop Bismark pretty comprehensively...:p

PoW might have managed it on her own. A balanced 16" design also wouldn't have had to rely on pure luck not to suffer a mission kill from Bismarck

As I noted earlier American fast BB were not really balanced although the BB-57 and BB-61 classes made up for it with some really clever design tricks. The RN ships were quite well armored, but their scheme was somewhat less well put together (again the 15" from Bismarck penetrating all the way to the machinery spaces is instructive, fortunately the fusing didn't work as well as the AP cap).

Regarding the pound; the UK started to limit the pound to Commonwealth states when the war started. even then it was less of a reserve currency than the USD is today, much less how the Dollar was prior to the introduction of the Euro. The USD was an equally, if not more preferred currency at the time. The USD had the advantage of still being at least partially backed by gold, which, at the time, was seen as a significant plus (although the U.S. managed to mess itself up due to some interesting decisions). Once the UK went off the Gold Standard they could, certainly, print all the currency desired, but that leads to massive inflation, which requires even more currency which increases... The key figure is debt at 162% of GDP. That is a disaster waiting to happen, for that matter the U.S. today, at roughly 100% to GDP is putting itself into a tight spot.

The Treaty was successful in keeping a lid on spending. The UK needed that far more than the U.S., or even Japan, although Japan's smaller budget would have shatters as well, possibly before the British. Conversely the U.S. simply had to decide to pull the trigger. Congress screwed around on that, mainly because there was no massive build up by either the UK or Japan. If there had been the U.S. could go from zero to DAMN! in an eyeblink.
 
Debt levels were not onerous or a disaster waiting to happen for Britain in the 1930s. They fell in the 1920s, rose around the period of the Depression and then fell again until the outbreak of war.

Debt as a percentage of British GDP 1923-1939
1923: 181.68%
1924: 174.7%
1925: 168.25%
1926: 173.51%
1927: 164.01%
1928: 163.41%
1929: 159.59%
1930: 161.6%
1931: 171.49%
1932: 175.76%
1933: 177.57%
1934: 172.91%
1935: 165%
1936: 156.08%
1937: 146%
1938: 145.6%
1939: 137.7%

Debt Interest Spending by Central Government in the 1930s
1930: 307.3
1931: 293.2
1932: 289.5
1933: 282.2
1934: 216.3
1935: 211.7
1936: 211.5
1937: 210.9
1938: 216.2
1939: 218.7

No one disputes the ability of the US to fund and build a large fleet. The British weren't interested in a naval race against the USN, but could hold their own quite capably against the Japanese and planned on that basis. The roots of rearmament come before Hitler came to power.

The financial benefit of the LNT is nebulous, given that there was the slack in the system to increase by 10 million quid in the pre-rearmament phase. It wouldn't be nation breaking or a trigger for insolvency and revolution to hold at 60 million and then break to 7580 million during the rearmament phase, but rather a matter of political will and an appropriate trigger.

There are a variety of things that could be funded within the realms of realism, apart from the aforementioned sloops, early Ark Royal, 4 extra FAA squadrons, battlefleet modernization and destroyer/cruiser tweaks.

I'd have to look over the numbers, but off the top of my head, I would say an earlier increase in ordering 2 flotillas of destroyers/year from 1933 onwards, a sister ship to Ark Royal, an extra KGV, 2-3 additional Town CLs and the two Implacables going down a bit earlier. It might be possible to squeeze in modernizations for Courageous and Glorious, but I never saved the material on those before Warships Projects went down last year.

Interesting things start to happen if the battleship construction cycle is pushed back to 1935 orders and 1936 laying down. That in turn would fiddle around with the Lion schedule.
 
Debt levels were not onerous or a disaster waiting to happen for Britain in the 1930s. They fell in the 1920s, rose around the period of the Depression and then fell again until the outbreak of war.

Debt as a percentage of British GDP 1923-1939
1923: 181.68%
1924: 174.7%
1925: 168.25%
1926: 173.51%
1927: 164.01%
1928: 163.41%
1929: 159.59%
1930: 161.6%
1931: 171.49%
1932: 175.76%
1933: 177.57%
1934: 172.91%
1935: 165%
1936: 156.08%
1937: 146%
1938: 145.6%
1939: 137.7%

Debt Interest Spending by Central Government in the 1930s
1930: 307.3
1931: 293.2
1932: 289.5
1933: 282.2
1934: 216.3
1935: 211.7
1936: 211.5
1937: 210.9
1938: 216.2
1939: 218.7

No one disputes the ability of the US to fund and build a large fleet. The British weren't interested in a naval race against the USN, but could hold their own quite capably against the Japanese and planned on that basis. The roots of rearmament come before Hitler came to power.

The financial benefit of the LNT is nebulous, given that there was the slack in the system to increase by 10 million quid in the pre-rearmament phase. It wouldn't be nation breaking or a trigger for insolvency and revolution to hold at 60 million and then break to 7580 million during the rearmament phase, but rather a matter of political will and an appropriate trigger.

There are a variety of things that could be funded within the realms of realism, apart from the aforementioned sloops, early Ark Royal, 4 extra FAA squadrons, battlefleet modernization and destroyer/cruiser tweaks.

I'd have to look over the numbers, but off the top of my head, I would say an earlier increase in ordering 2 flotillas of destroyers/year from 1933 onwards, a sister ship to Ark Royal, an extra KGV, 2-3 additional Town CLs and the two Implacables going down a bit earlier. It might be possible to squeeze in modernizations for Courageous and Glorious, but I never saved the material on those before Warships Projects went down last year.

Interesting things start to happen if the battleship construction cycle is pushed back to 1935 orders and 1936 laying down. That in turn would fiddle around with the Lion schedule.

Seriously why didnt the british try to go for a blatant alliance against japan after they skipped the treaty - maybe even a winkwink deal cause of US neutrality issues??? 45t and 16" were discussed in the treaty if japan didnt come along...

Side benefit could have been kgv-s with 16" and maybe even around 45t range and armored against 16" aswell - then only golden bb shots and maybe yamato class ships are a threat in gun duels.I imagine the torpedo defense could been improved for example?

Also i remember someone saying how hell do the japanese fit that many aircraft into their carriers and the DNC said they are lying or building them out of paper (this was an actual converastion i think). Maybe another thing to do with the lion could have been planning not for 5 but like for 3 for one flagship for each fleet home/med/east? And be completly unreasonable about it. Also no fall of france might make the lions cancellation alot less likely aswell if the admirals admit that only kgv-s and the bc-s can keep up with carriers and other nations bb-s`?

Also the failure could deliver a chance to do a big cruiser to be flagship in secondary theaters/counter to other nations cruisers - maybe a greatly armored 8"(well i mean how much armor can u but into 13-14t?) or a 9,2" design with like 4-6 to be built for around 1940 for commissionin - maybe ask canada/australia if they want one of their own fo example to be their flagship(also when were the panzershiffte or whatever the big cruisers of the germans built- the british had a handle on german building programme so that might be a trigger to do a big ship?? ) . Also enlarging the 6" abit might be interesting and might make them even more useful during wartime. according to earlier post during 29-39 there wasnt a single 6"+ incher cruiser done - i get the numbers thing but still that is abit strange.

To US bb fans ,think about north carolinas and south dakotas as 45t ships - they could been pretty awesome aswell. Might butterfly away the montana plans in favor a extra or two iowa-s instead?
 
Last edited:
It wasn't just the gun. Naval architects create "balanced" designs (for those who may be unfamiliar with the term, that means their armor can protect against their main gun). A balanced 16" design capable of 28 knots would need to be, full load, 50,000+ tons (the U.S. fast BB, much like the IJN designs were not 100% balanced, although with some rather clever design tricks both the South Dakota and Iowa class ships managed to be protected in their machinery and magazine spaces to above their own weapon's capability, the first USN fast BB with true balance would have been the never built Montana class). More than most fleets, the RN was great believer in the balance concept, actually tending to tilt to overbalance on the armor side of the scales. Having the KGV class as balanced if she was armed with 16"/45 (especially the new Mark IV, which was a significantly better gun then the Mark I on Nelson and the planned G3), would have driven the cost up by at least 20% per hull.

I haven't looked into BB design for a long time now so I'll be a bit vague. If the KGVs were overbalanced for 14" what would they be balanced at, 14.5", 15" or what? Also I have a vague idea that the USN played around with the numbers at which their ships were protected at in order to make the Treaty limits, so for example if ideally a ship was protected from 16" at 20,000 yards the USN said it was protected at say 17,000 yards the armour and displacement figures all came together on the books. Or something like that.
 
IIRC the 14" guns for the KGV were a political decision dictated to the Admiralty by the Government in pursuit of their general disarmament policy which lasted till the collapse of the Geneva talks in May 1937. Therefore the KGV can be said to have been a compromise design rather than the ideal design desired for on the set treaty limit tonnage.
 
PoW might have managed it on her own. A balanced 16" design also wouldn't have had to rely on pure luck not to suffer a mission kill from Bismarck

As I noted earlier American fast BB were not really balanced although the BB-57 and BB-61 classes made up for it with some really clever design tricks. The RN ships were quite well armored, but their scheme was somewhat less well put together (again the 15" from Bismarck penetrating all the way to the machinery spaces is instructive, fortunately the fusing didn't work as well as the AP cap).

Is this the one that dived under the belt? I thought that it was generally understood that it would have detonated in the water had the fuse worked. In which case, additional armour there could be viewed as an inefficient use of tonnage.

The KGVs had a deep belt anyway, AFAIK - considerably more so than Bismarck, although of course that does reflect the expected battle ranges.
 
The financial benefit of the LNT is nebulous, given that there was the slack in the system to increase by 10 million quid in the pre-rearmament phase. It wouldn't be nation breaking or a trigger for insolvency and revolution to hold at 60 million and then break to 7580 million during the rearmament phase, but rather a matter of political will and an appropriate trigger.

This would entail halving the reduction, between the average spend before the dip, compared with the average spend in the three years in the dip - and over three years gives you almost £10m. Not an unreasonable reduction, given that maintaining the previous high figure would be unrealistic in the 'crash'.
Modernise the Glorious after its crash in 1931 (damage to the bows), and after success, do the twin in '32.
I question the Sloops, are they cost effective - a Corvettes instead?

Can we I wonder scrap the Iron Duke in '31, and de-militarise the Tiger instead - it is later modernised with 8 x 14" guns !??
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The key figure is debt at 162% of GDP. That is a disaster waiting to happen, for that matter the U.S. today, at roughly 100% to GDP is putting itself into a tight spot.
Why that exact number? That is, what's the reason that number specifically is impending disaster?
 
DK Brown has it as:
"On 20 September 1935 the paper was discussed by the Sea Lords who decided on nine 15in guns and 29kts. In October it was learned that the USA would agree to a 14in limit on guns provided that Japan agreed. Since it was hoped to order the guns for the first two battleships before the end of 1935 a decision had to be made very quickly. On 10 October, the Sea Lords decided on twelve 14in and 28kts". (Nelson to Vanguard, p.28)


The plan was to only have one type of turret. DK Brown again:

"To keep within the 35,000-ton limit the thickness of the deck was reduced by 1/2in and the upper belt by 1in... The reduction in thickness was not liked and, after discussion of various alternatives, it was agreed to reduce the main armament to ten 14in guns. There was an interesting discussion, recorded in Pengelly's work book, as to the position for the twin mounting. This note shows one example of the numerous interacting factors in a design.
Y- Weight aft reduced, lowering docking stress; less blast on aircraft and hanger; shell rooms easier.
A- Move citadel forward and improve arrangement at Y; reduce sagging stress; can fine lines forward.
B- Move citadel forward; greatest weight saving; less blast on bridge"

(Nelson to Vanguard, p.29)

Yes, but the interesting bit it doesn't explain is why the RN was happy to go from 15" to 14" when it didn't really save them anything. In fact two different turret designs costs more.

My personal supposition is that it was one of those behind the scenes pressure from someone, which will never come out as it would never have been recorded.
 
Regarding the pound; the UK started to limit the pound to Commonwealth states when the war started. even then it was less of a reserve currency than the USD is today, much less how the Dollar was prior to the introduction of the Euro. The USD was an equally, if not more preferred currency at the time. The USD had the advantage of still being at least partially backed by gold, which, at the time, was seen as a significant plus (although the U.S. managed to mess itself up due to some interesting decisions). Once the UK went off the Gold Standard they could, certainly, print all the currency desired, but that leads to massive inflation, which requires even more currency which increases... The key figure is debt at 162% of GDP. That is a disaster waiting to happen, for that matter the U.S. today, at roughly 100% to GDP is putting itself into a tight spot.

The reason for not wanting to spend dollars was that the USA would only accept dollars (or gold). Everyone else took pounds (not just the Empire) except Canada who was tied to the US Dollar (in practice). Since Britain didn't have huge dollar reserves (un-needed in peacetime as they could buy from everyone except the USA), they had to be careful with them.

Printing currency doesn't always lead to inflation, although given the level of debt, it could actually have been beneficial to the UK government - it was the 1920's superinflation that wiped out the German debt in Germany, after all
 
This would entail halving the reduction, between the average spend before the dip, compared with the average spend in the three years in the dip - and over three years gives you almost £10m. Not an unreasonable reduction, given that maintaining the previous high figure would be unrealistic in the 'crash'.


Modernise the Glorious after its crash in 1931 (damage to the bows), and after success, do the twin in '32.

I question the Sloops, are they cost effective - a Corvettes instead?

Can we I wonder scrap the Iron Duke in '31, and de-militarise the Tiger instead - it is later modernised with 8 x 14" guns !??

Something along those levels would work. There should be a dash between 75 and 80 million pounds for the late 1930s figure.

Getting C and G modernised so soon after their conversion is going to be marginal, given that Glorious finished in 1930 and Courageous in 1928.

The sloops are unrestricted in numbers under Washington and are a current design; corvettes were not around until 1939 for good reason.

Tiger would need a fair bit of money to end up with a slower second class battlecruiser. Given that modernization of the QEs and Renown cost 2.3-2.5 million pounds, it would be better spending that money on Hood and Repulse.

With 5 modernized QEs, 3 modernized battlecruisers and possible upgrades to Nelsol and Rodnol, there is a good second class battleline. The first class ships would need to be 5-6 KGVs and 6 Lions at a minimum, given some of the numbers bandied around for the Tentative Fleet Plan. The third rates/modern 74s would be the 8" heavy cruisers and the large light cruisers.
 
Top