AH IJN carrier conversion question

[MrP]

Next question: post treaty, the UK gets to build two battleships in 1932. What do these battleships look like, if they are limited to 35,000 tons and 16" guns?

I agree with Steve that they'll be something like Nelson and Rodney. However, they should have fewer problems, since several teething problems will be ironed out on their big sisters.

I don't have to. I believe you. Trust me. According to what I read, the Akagi and Amagi were both scheduled for conversion to carriers after the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty. The battlecruiser Kaga, was scheduled to be
scrapped. By a twist of fate, that being the Tokyo earthquake of 1923, Amagi was destroyed on the ways and ended up being scrapped. So Kaga,
which was on her way to the breakers, was converted into an aircraft carrier
instead.

Battleship, not battlecruiser, old boy. See Douglas' post above.

 

[Douglas]

Douglas

If those are the limits then quite I suspect possibly very similar to OTL Nelson and Rodney. A bit more concern for protection against air attack perhaps. More advanced power plants and the like as they will have progressed in the mean time. It gives useful if slightly slow units, well protected, with powerful guns. Big question might be if Britain changes parts of the gun structures from brass to steel to try and save weight. This was a big cause of problems with the OTL 16" guns, along with the decision to go for a max elevation of 45 degrees. If you avoid those steps and with a tried and tested triple 16" developed then they should avoid the problems with the guns that the two ships had OTL. Might be largely completed by the time the depression hits, provided the work is not spread out too much between the various companies. [Also depends on what part of 27 the treaty occurs in of course].

Reason I asked about those limits was that in OTL 1921, other than the Hood, all ships built/to be completed were up to about 33k. As such and given the difficulty of cutting the G3 design down to treaty limits and the fact Britain was only getting two ships 35k was a suitable minimal limit. However in TTL there are numerous ships of ~40+k [5 RN, 4 USN, 6IJN] so the limit may seem more arbitary. Especially since, depending when new construction is allowed, designers, needing to consider the big ships other powers have and a lot of new equipment to go in as AA and electrionics increase in importance, may consider they can not build viable ships on that tonnage].

On the other hand that could be a good reason for the big 3 to try and impose such a limit. Its in their interests, at least in the short term, that their big ships can't be matched by other powers. Such as France and Italy who may be looking at each other nervously by now, and any newly emerging contentor.

Looking at the numbers again, 40,000 and 16" would probably be the limits rather than 35,000, allowing for improvements on the OTL Nelson design. what do these ships look like, if built by the RN and just barely completed in time for the Depression?

One possible spanner that might have been thrown into the work? OTL 1921 amongst other things prevented construction of capital ships for other powers. Without a treaty its a possibility that someone may have been asked to build something for a 3rd power. [Most likely from the southern Latin trio or possibly China]. Can't see any of the other European powers building any new capital ships as France and Italy are too exhausted in the early 20's and no one else is in a position to. [Unless you have the Netherlands or Spain say but that is unlikely I suspect]. Presume TTL 1927 treaty will also ban such construction?

Steve

I don't think any battleship for a 3rd power is realistically going to be built before the 1927 treaty, and the said treaty will also ban such construction.

A question I have: during the Invergordon Mutiny, some sailors threatened to sabotage machinery, sail battleships away, etc. What would the RN's reaction be if the following occurred in mid-1931:

1. Pay is cut as in OTL, but even worse, as the Navy is told by British politicians that it will have to cut its budget further if it wants to save its Little G3s under construction.

2. The mutiny is longer, more widespread, and not handled well by officials. One of the crews of the G3 ships puts to sea against the will of many of its crew onboard, and the ship's machinery is damaged by its own crew, resulting in an embarrassing grounding.

What will the reaction to this be, assuming the mutiny is reined in soon after one of the RN's newest battleships is rendered incapable of combat? What could the crew do the G3's machinery (Invincible, for now), and how long would it take to fix?

 

[David S Poepoe]

What will the reaction to this be, assuming the mutiny is reined in soon after one of the RN's newest battleships is rendered incapable of combat? What could the crew do the G3's machinery (Invincible, for now), and how long would it take to fix?

I would consider anything short of blowing up the warship to be inconsequential to its use in combat. The Americans and Italians salvaged battle damaged sunken battleships from harbor floors and repaired them for eventual combat. Two years at most.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I would consider anything short of blowing up the warship to be inconsequential to its use in combat. The Americans and Italians salvaged battle damaged sunken battleships from harbor floors and repaired them for eventual combat. Two years at most.

And Britain with the couple of QEs sunk at moorings in ?Alexandria by Italian midgets

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[bard32]

Bard, Douglas is trying to consider the make-up of the IJN in a different timeline. I'm sure he's fully aware of the make-up of the IJN in our own history.

Oh, my bad. I didn't know that. However, if we're considering that, then how
about the Yamatos? The Yamato class was what we called "superbattleships." When they were first built, they had 18" guns. They outgunned and outranged, our pre-Iowa battleships like the USS Texas,
which only had 14" guns. The Yamatos would have been great supercarriers.
Shinano, which was being converted to an aircraft carrier, was sunk by the
Archerfish in 1944. However, if you want an unusual aircraft carrier, go to wikipedia and look up the Japanese I-400 class. If it had been built, it would have posed a BIG THREAT to the Panama Canal.

 

[bard32]

Douglas, if you want to consider the make up of the IJN in an alternate timeline, then consider the I-400 class of Japanese submarines. They were bigger than the average Japanese I-class submarine because they were intended to be used as submarine aircraft carriers.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Oh, my bad. I didn't know that. However, if we're considering that, then how
about the Yamatos? The Yamato class was what we called "superbattleships." When they were first built, they had 18" guns. They outgunned and outranged, our pre-Iowa battleships like the USS Texas,
which only had 14" guns. The Yamatos would have been great supercarriers.
Shinano, which was being converted to an aircraft carrier, was sunk by the
Archerfish in 1944. However, if you want an unusual aircraft carrier, go to wikipedia and look up the Japanese I-400 class. If it had been built, it would have posed a BIG THREAT to the Panama Canal.

The Yamato class was laid down in secret and for the most part without any great detail being known by any Western intelligence service. I do not know any serious reference book that refers to them as 'superbattleships' - unless you are talking about a recent Nova episode. I think it would be safe to say that the Yamato also outranged the pre-Iowa class battleships like the Colorado, North Carolina and South Dakota classes.

The three I-400 submarines were completed and they were much later than TTL 1927 treaty.

 

[bard32]

The Yamato class was laid down in secret and for the most part without any great detail being known by any Western intelligence service. I do not know any serious reference book that refers to them as 'superbattleships' - unless you are talking about a recent Nova episode. I think it would be safe to say that the Yamato also outranged the pre-Iowa class battleships like the Colorado, North Carolina and South Dakota classes.

The three I-400 submarines were completed and they were much later than TTL 1927 treaty.

Oh my bad again. Thanks.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Oh my bad again. Thanks.

You've got reoccuring habit which really should be looked at.

 

[stevep]

Looking at the numbers again, 40,000 and 16" would probably be the limits rather than 35,000, allowing for improvements on the OTL Nelson design. what do these ships look like, if built by the RN and just barely completed in time for the Depression?

In that case I might go for a 12x16" ship, i.e. a 4th triple turret. One of the guys on the naval site I mentioned, a hell of an expert who's doing his doctorate on the Washington Treaty, suggested such as design as the next step in a non-Washington Treaty world after the G3s. Partly because their still very powerful ships but avoid making Britain the 1st to breach the 16" barrier. That would definitely have to be the case TTL with your treaty but such a design would be very powerful. A good bit slower, more like the speed of the Queens at about 23-25kts I would guess. [Alternatively drop the 4th turret and go for a conventional A,B, Y turret layout and better speed. [If by this time the technology has improved enough for it].

In this world the RN is going to be a hell of a lot stronger in the run up to any conflict with a much more powerful and more modern fleet, even if say the depression means rearmament in the democracies start later or there might be a mini treaty while its at its height which cuts deeper.

I can't see the ships being completed by Oct 29. However, unless they are slow because the government wants to spread out the work a bit they will probably be about 2/3 completed by then.

In such a scenario what is the situation of the 2nd tier powers. Thinking chiefly of France and Italy but possibly also a couple of others. They will definitely want to build sooner or later because their ships are getting pretty damned old and also are totally outclassed by the ships produced by the big 3.

I don't think any battleship for a 3rd power is realistically going to be built before the 1927 treaty, and the said treaty will also ban such construction.

OK, thanks for clarifying. A lot would depend on political stability and economic development in the relevant areas so I thought I better mention it to you as a possibility to be aware of.

A question I have: during the Invergordon Mutiny, some sailors threatened to sabotage machinery, sail battleships away, etc. What would the RN's reaction be if the following occurred in mid-1931:

1. Pay is cut as in OTL, but even worse, as the Navy is told by British politicians that it will have to cut its budget further if it wants to save its Little G3s under construction.

2. The mutiny is longer, more widespread, and not handled well by officials. One of the crews of the G3 ships puts to sea against the will of many of its crew onboard, and the ship's machinery is damaged by its own crew, resulting in an embarrassing grounding.

What will the reaction to this be, assuming the mutiny is reined in soon after one of the RN's newest battleships is rendered incapable of combat? What could the crew do the G3's machinery (Invincible, for now), and how long would it take to fix?

Good point. It would depend on the exact circumstances but that could be pretty bad. Think the British economy might be a bit stronger with the construction generating work in areas in decline during much of the 20's. However with anything like the OTL depression everybody is going to be hurting a lot. Worse still I don't think there's enough bufferflies to get the Keynesian option to be tried so the government is going to cut back hard. Think there was also unrest in ~1921, under think it was called the Gledis[sp] Axe as a lot of cuts were made in spending in the immediate post-WWI slump.

I think there would be a lot of pride in the navy, even more than OTL and you might even see fighting on the affected ships between the crews under those circumstances. However could well be possible that some act of sabotage occurs. Depends on how much control they have. Raising steam and actually saying would require a significant part of the crew for several hours at least and the rest being either inactive or controlled and not sure this would be possible. [Unless you got a fairly extreme communist group getting together]. In that case there might be a lot of damage and especially with funds being limited the ship taking a while to repair. In which case a very strong reaction from the higher command, with probably some hangings. How things went from there might depend on the reaction of the rest of the navy and also feeling outside it. [To take comparisons the two main mutinies in 1797. Spithead was handled fairly moderately on both sides. The admirals admitted a lot of mistakes and made changes in response to the sailors demands on conditions. In return the sailors made clear throughout the dispute that their demands were economical/social in terms of the plights of them and their families. Also that they would immediately return to orders if the French put to sea. The later Nore mutiny saw more radical elements take control with talk of political reform and a republic of the fleet but also a stronger reaction when the bulk of the sailors turned against the mutinaries and the authorities hung several of the ringleaders. I think either way any unrest would have more political tones in the 1930's but how much and how the authorities ultimately respond would be vital. A more moderate reaction after an initial over-reaction would probably heal a lot of wounds, along with the government replacing the purse-strings a bit in response. A long, more bitter dispute with continued bad feeling and deep discontent could be very damaging to the navy, far more than any physical damage even if a ship was sunk.

Sorry, rabbited a bit there and too long since I read up on the navy in the 20's and 30's so going more by feeling.

Steve