All of this is true, but relates only to the buying of new ships, whereas most of what is being discussed here is related to adapting and streamlining OTL designs for greater efficiency (f.e. the discussion of the standardisation of 4", 4.5", 4.7" and 5.25" guns for destroyers)
Alternative Royal Navy for the 1930s
- Thread starter Cryhavoc101
- Start date
The RN doesn't need to get bigger, especially when all other navies are bound by the WNT and LNT, it just needs to not make as many fuckups, many of which came with significant financial costs. The Tony Williams article spells out the costly waste and duplication in medium calibre guns, when all the RN had to do was raise the roller path in the existing and planned new 4.7" gun turrets to allow 70deg+ elevation. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
hipper
Banned
Colony class were over 10,000 tons Didos were 3/4 the size with smaller engines
You get 4 Dido's for 3 colony's
The 5.25 " gun was a good compromise gun for a light a/a cruiser compare them with the Atlanta's
Best change you can give the RN is to strangle the RAF At birth.
Cheers Hipper
sharlin
Banned
The Dido's would have been fine AA ships if they had been a bit smaller and armed with 4.5's or HA 4.7s. They were too small for the 5.25's and the design for the 5.25 turret was quite poor and only fixed in the Vanguard's versions of them.
Remember that pre-war the RN was quite a good proponent of AA guns as and had a pritty good director system and in the 20's and 30's there was NO equivalent in the world to the 8 barreled 2lber.
Perhaps like in Whale has Wings if the RN adopted the 40mm barrels for its 2lber mounts earlier as well as went for the 20mm Okierlon cannon as well then the RN's AA fire would have been more effective.
Remember that pre-war the RN was quite a good proponent of AA guns as and had a pritty good director system and in the 20's and 30's there was NO equivalent in the world to the 8 barreled 2lber.
Perhaps like in Whale has Wings if the RN adopted the 40mm barrels for its 2lber mounts earlier as well as went for the 20mm Okierlon cannon as well then the RN's AA fire would have been more effective.
Could not agree more re the Dido's. Convert the C Class to AA ships earlier.
It's really in the builds of the smaller ships and standardising things that savings can be made. It is worth noting that the RN was under the limit on carrier tonnage. One nice change would have been to scrap the Hermes and build two Ark Royals, probably the first one earlier.
In regards to the "sexy stuff" or larger ships, keep Tiger and use Revenge as the "gunnery training ship", ala Hiei(could be refurbished and recommissioned post 1936).
Cryhavoc101
Donor
On the subject of Medium calibre guns I am basically scrapping everything in the 4" 4.5" 4.7" and 5.25" range and instead having a Common Duel Purpose Twin High angle 4.7" from 1934 ish onwards
So this would act as the primary weapon / Turret on all post 1934 Destroyers, Aircraft carriers, Fleet Defence Cruisers (more on this later) and to be the secondary armament on everything from the Leander class and above (only the 2 Admirals - Nelson and Rodney will keep heavier secondary weapons in the Twin 6"ers).
Aircraft attacking surface vessels care not if the shells bursting around them are 4" 4.7" or 5.25" (its all very alarming for an attacking pilot) - shells bursting around them is enough and the 4.7" Twins could fire much faster than the 5.25 and the handling of shells etc would be marginally easier and faster (not to mention storage). Also the whole gun mount and arrangement etc would be less intrusive and lighter.
Plus by settling on a single medium calibre there is a whole lot of savings not just in the cost of manufacture of both weapon system and ammo but also in Training, storage, logistics etc in not having to worry about 3 or 4 different types of Medium calibre shell types.
The Dido is still built but is a very light Cruiser - about 4000 Tons - and will mount 8 of the DP Twin 4.7s (Later dropped to 6 with increased numbers of Quad Bofors fitted) and 4 Quad Bofors. Principle role is Anti air with a secondary role of Anti submarine (fitted with depth charge racks and throwers) - they are intended for close defence of high value 'assets' such as CVs, BBs and Important merchant ships.
So this would act as the primary weapon / Turret on all post 1934 Destroyers, Aircraft carriers, Fleet Defence Cruisers (more on this later) and to be the secondary armament on everything from the Leander class and above (only the 2 Admirals - Nelson and Rodney will keep heavier secondary weapons in the Twin 6"ers).
Aircraft attacking surface vessels care not if the shells bursting around them are 4" 4.7" or 5.25" (its all very alarming for an attacking pilot) - shells bursting around them is enough and the 4.7" Twins could fire much faster than the 5.25 and the handling of shells etc would be marginally easier and faster (not to mention storage). Also the whole gun mount and arrangement etc would be less intrusive and lighter.
Plus by settling on a single medium calibre there is a whole lot of savings not just in the cost of manufacture of both weapon system and ammo but also in Training, storage, logistics etc in not having to worry about 3 or 4 different types of Medium calibre shell types.
The Dido is still built but is a very light Cruiser - about 4000 Tons - and will mount 8 of the DP Twin 4.7s (Later dropped to 6 with increased numbers of Quad Bofors fitted) and 4 Quad Bofors. Principle role is Anti air with a secondary role of Anti submarine (fitted with depth charge racks and throwers) - they are intended for close defence of high value 'assets' such as CVs, BBs and Important merchant ships.
sharlin
Banned
As much as I love the Tiger, she was getting long in the tooth, she'd had a very busy wartime period and had taken a serious pounding.
There would be supply issues with her 13.5's which would probably be unique as the other 13.5 ships would be decomissioned (sure this means lots of spare barrels around and lots of ammo but to keep and store that just for her = expensive.)
Refitting her and re-building her armour scheme so its something not so obsolete would be expensive as all hell, as you'd have to convert her into a oil burner for one thing. A major rebuild like the Renown would probably be asking too much but you could plate over her 6 inch guns and add some dual 4 inchers for a DP armament, add some pom-poms if you can and keep the BC squadron 4 strong, allowing for them to have three out and one under refit/repair.
Agree RE the Ark, really she was designed under weight, and quite under the treaty limitations, expanding her could have added another propshaft and a better laid out TDS and maybe a bigger hanger if she had been built to treaty size. But of course that means she's more expensive.
Re the RN's carriers I'd have scrapped the Eagle and Argus, kept the Hermes as a training ship and if possible built another Ark type vessel whilst updating/modernising Fisher's Follies to have a full flight deck forwards and be of a uniform type. One thing also I would have done is carry out the research and development of the ahead throwing DC launcher that was developed and tested and then cancelled for no good reason.
Cry i'd say go with the 4.5, the 4.7 was a fairly large and rather heavy shell and a bugger to move around on a smaller craft.
There would be supply issues with her 13.5's which would probably be unique as the other 13.5 ships would be decomissioned (sure this means lots of spare barrels around and lots of ammo but to keep and store that just for her = expensive.)
Refitting her and re-building her armour scheme so its something not so obsolete would be expensive as all hell, as you'd have to convert her into a oil burner for one thing. A major rebuild like the Renown would probably be asking too much but you could plate over her 6 inch guns and add some dual 4 inchers for a DP armament, add some pom-poms if you can and keep the BC squadron 4 strong, allowing for them to have three out and one under refit/repair.
Agree RE the Ark, really she was designed under weight, and quite under the treaty limitations, expanding her could have added another propshaft and a better laid out TDS and maybe a bigger hanger if she had been built to treaty size. But of course that means she's more expensive.
Re the RN's carriers I'd have scrapped the Eagle and Argus, kept the Hermes as a training ship and if possible built another Ark type vessel whilst updating/modernising Fisher's Follies to have a full flight deck forwards and be of a uniform type. One thing also I would have done is carry out the research and development of the ahead throwing DC launcher that was developed and tested and then cancelled for no good reason.
Cry i'd say go with the 4.5, the 4.7 was a fairly large and rather heavy shell and a bugger to move around on a smaller craft.
APMEP, To change the RN you ealy need to change the WNT, and the LT terms. The Dominions had paid for 3 major warships pre 1914, Two battle cruisera (repaeat Invincibles) and a purchased Battle ship, All od these were disposed post war,Therfore IMHO the RN could take two stances to improve the cruiser position, Turn the Hawkins class into trade protection aircraft carriers and then limit all cruisers to 6" Or give them tho the dominions to replace their capital ships and again argue for a 6" cruiser limit on the basis athat the Dominions are not signetories to the treaty.
Changing the economic situation is more problematical as to polotics, well?
Giving the FAA back to the Navy in 1923 could make for some intersting changes.
Changing the economic situation is more problematical as to polotics, well?
Giving the FAA back to the Navy in 1923 could make for some intersting changes.
Be careful about deleting ship types for the wrong reasons.
The Dido's were NOT designed as AA Cruisers - if they had been, they would have mounted 4.5" guns.
Similarly, in ineffectiveness of the 4.7" in HA is mainly a myth - it only mattered against direct HA attack - in effect, dive bombers. The famed US 5" was no better against that type of attack.
The RN did have a very good base for a GP destroyer. Take a Tribal, widen the beam slightly to increase the fuel load. Remove X turret, replace with an four or eight barrel 2pdr/40mm, and fit a few more single 40mm and 20mm. Alter the hull form for more fuel efficiency, then make them welded (or at least the hull) to gain the speed lost back.
That would give you (in 1937) the best GP destroyer until the large late WW2 types.
The Dido's were NOT designed as AA Cruisers - if they had been, they would have mounted 4.5" guns.
Similarly, in ineffectiveness of the 4.7" in HA is mainly a myth - it only mattered against direct HA attack - in effect, dive bombers. The famed US 5" was no better against that type of attack.
The RN did have a very good base for a GP destroyer. Take a Tribal, widen the beam slightly to increase the fuel load. Remove X turret, replace with an four or eight barrel 2pdr/40mm, and fit a few more single 40mm and 20mm. Alter the hull form for more fuel efficiency, then make them welded (or at least the hull) to gain the speed lost back.
That would give you (in 1937) the best GP destroyer until the large late WW2 types.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
I will tidy this all up later (this is harder than I thought it would be)
I am of the school of thought that keeping an older ship in commission etc becomes more and more expensive with reducing returns for your effort and treasure spent.
I also accept that some of the older designs were absolutely fine and worthy of expensive refits etc.
The issue Britain had in refitting ships was not so much that they did not have the money (this was a problem of course) but that the doctrine was to keep the fleet on show as much as possible (Trying to be the worlds policeman!) made having ships on hand for refitting very difficult.
A great example is the Revenge class and the Queen Elizabeth class of Battleships.
The QEs are arguably the most useful Battleship class ever built. Fast, Well Protected and with the 4 MK1N 15" Twins more than a match for all but the newest Battleships (Namely the Bismarck Twins, maybe the Romas, the 2 Nagato's and the Yamoto's).
The refits given to HMS Warspite and some of her sisters as well as Renown turned her into a completely different creature - the same refit was impossible on the Revenges there simply was not the space to improve their machinery and the armour scheme was not as good as the Queens.
So I would after the 2nd London Treaty start to decommission the Rs and recycle their turrets into a 35000 ton baby Nelson class - optimised for speed and air defence - so 30+ Knots, 3 x Mk1N Twin 15" 10 Twin DP 4.7s and multiple Bofor mounts. Consider them very well protected Battle Cruisers.
Basically 2 waves of 4 commissioning in 1939 and 1941 respectively.
The 3 BCs and 5 Queens would all be refitted to Warspite standard in pairs 1 a year starting with the Queens - I would hope that all 8 would have completed their major refits by end of 1940
No Lions (cancelled anyway) and No KGVs with their complicated and troublesome armament.
16 New or modernised Capital ships in service by 1941 is the goal.
I am of the school of thought that keeping an older ship in commission etc becomes more and more expensive with reducing returns for your effort and treasure spent.
I also accept that some of the older designs were absolutely fine and worthy of expensive refits etc.
The issue Britain had in refitting ships was not so much that they did not have the money (this was a problem of course) but that the doctrine was to keep the fleet on show as much as possible (Trying to be the worlds policeman!) made having ships on hand for refitting very difficult.
A great example is the Revenge class and the Queen Elizabeth class of Battleships.
The QEs are arguably the most useful Battleship class ever built. Fast, Well Protected and with the 4 MK1N 15" Twins more than a match for all but the newest Battleships (Namely the Bismarck Twins, maybe the Romas, the 2 Nagato's and the Yamoto's).
The refits given to HMS Warspite and some of her sisters as well as Renown turned her into a completely different creature - the same refit was impossible on the Revenges there simply was not the space to improve their machinery and the armour scheme was not as good as the Queens.
So I would after the 2nd London Treaty start to decommission the Rs and recycle their turrets into a 35000 ton baby Nelson class - optimised for speed and air defence - so 30+ Knots, 3 x Mk1N Twin 15" 10 Twin DP 4.7s and multiple Bofor mounts. Consider them very well protected Battle Cruisers.
Basically 2 waves of 4 commissioning in 1939 and 1941 respectively.
The 3 BCs and 5 Queens would all be refitted to Warspite standard in pairs 1 a year starting with the Queens - I would hope that all 8 would have completed their major refits by end of 1940
No Lions (cancelled anyway) and No KGVs with their complicated and troublesome armament.
16 New or modernised Capital ships in service by 1941 is the goal.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
Hah! The failed experiment eh?
I'm not a proponent of that argument to be honest - once you have dis proven the lie that 1 Battleship = 1000 bombers (it was about 30 -40 bombers in the early 30s) and the other lie - The bomber will always get through 'Crab Air' will have to take things more seriously.
Also they have to understand that airpower alone cannot win a thing
They have 2 jobs in their eyes and 2 jobs that they will try to wriggle out of with as much effort as possible.
The first 2 are Fighter command and bomber command.
The first is relatively perfectly formed - a bit greedy when it came to sharing its toys with others but otherwise did everything asked of and expected of it.
Will get slightly mugged as the Navy will base its principle aircraft on the single and twin Merlin engined aircraft. Softening the blow by not having other aircraft being built instead.
Fighter command will also be expected to provide suitable air defence for Singapore, Malta, Gib and Alex including defence of air facilities (Basically the RAF Regt gets born earlier).
Bomber command however made grand claims during the interwar period and pretty much failed at all of them until it got its act together later in the war.
A Very greedy organisation - some have suggested that 50% of Britain armament industry was focused on building and supporting Bomber command.
It will have to become more focused in target selection (Power stations and canal and rail hubs as well as POL - the Rhur cannot function if it has no electricity), more technically proficient and smaller as it will get mugged of both pilots and aircraft to provide a much stronger maritime patrol force than existed historically.
Maritime Command - A mixed force of twin and 4 engined aircraft - to conduct recon, surveilance, ASW work and anti shipping strikes
Lastly Tactical Airforce - Listen to them squirm - yes they will have to provide a powerful ground attack group and inter army cooperation units - need to get of their well groomed butts and sort this out during the 30s.
He also has a couple of good pages on short and medium range AA gun systems like the 20mm Oerlikon and 40mm Bofors as well as some thoughts on inter-war battleship design.
Tony seems to suggest they should have stayed with and standardised on the 4.7-inch L45 gun firing the improved 62lb shell, use the same high-angle twin turrets as the 4.5 inch to mount them and give them power ramming/fuse setters. Combined with the smaller QF 4-inch guns I think that would take care of most of what they would need.
There are serious issues with your ideas for battleships if you assume the naval treaties stand.
You cannot start to build until a Jan 1937 - as was done.
If you are going to modernise ships, for the sort of major reconstructions done you have to assume 2.5 years a ship. Allow for ships undergoing routine maintenance, and you suddenly get very short of battleships at a time international tensions were growing rapidly. This is politically and operational impossible.
Building the ships faster would involve pre-preparing equipment, forbidden by the treaty. The British bent these rules, but to get any major improvements you need to have the government decide to break them (in which case you may as well scrap the displacement limits as well)
Battleship building is constrained by a number of factors, but for Britain it was basically the main armament, FCC, and armour. Speeding up all of these require decisions and money some 2+ years previously. Plant takes time to build, and cant be used for anything else.
There are some improvements that can be made, but unless the government is prepared to spend money earlier, not too much can be done.
(1) Build the KGV with 3x3 15" guns. This was nearly done, this was in the initial designs. Some nameless civil servant decide late on to go to 12x14" guns. By the mid-30's the issues with the NelRod turrets had been identified; with money, these can be addressed and fixe, and then the KGV use the same design. (This would save about 6 months on the construction time)
The gunnery performance of the KGV is little different from any other BB in similar weather conditions - few people understand the issues of trying to shoot a 15" shell on a ship flexing in a moving seaway. The KGV were also as fast or faster than all contemporary designs. Steam plants could have been improved, but again the true power isn't the stated power - plants could and were operated at higher than 'maximum' power, and the lower performance plants could be forced to a higher overspec.
A baby Nelson class would be a poor design. If built, it would be more like a modern Renown, with better armour. Which would btw, be perfect for chasing down raiders and enemy cruisers. Ironically WW2 would see BB's used as battlecruisers, rather than the other way around as in WW1...
They wouldn't take much less time to build, btw - about 6 months at best, even with the armament not an issue(btw, you still have to rebuild the R-class turrets...), you still have the FCC, armour and machinery to build.
One final thing - Tony Williams is excellent on guns - a world expert. He is NOT (self-admittedly) a naval expert, and so except on some gunnery experts his opinion there should be taken with some care.
You cannot start to build until a Jan 1937 - as was done.
If you are going to modernise ships, for the sort of major reconstructions done you have to assume 2.5 years a ship. Allow for ships undergoing routine maintenance, and you suddenly get very short of battleships at a time international tensions were growing rapidly. This is politically and operational impossible.
Building the ships faster would involve pre-preparing equipment, forbidden by the treaty. The British bent these rules, but to get any major improvements you need to have the government decide to break them (in which case you may as well scrap the displacement limits as well)
Battleship building is constrained by a number of factors, but for Britain it was basically the main armament, FCC, and armour. Speeding up all of these require decisions and money some 2+ years previously. Plant takes time to build, and cant be used for anything else.
There are some improvements that can be made, but unless the government is prepared to spend money earlier, not too much can be done.
(1) Build the KGV with 3x3 15" guns. This was nearly done, this was in the initial designs. Some nameless civil servant decide late on to go to 12x14" guns. By the mid-30's the issues with the NelRod turrets had been identified; with money, these can be addressed and fixe, and then the KGV use the same design. (This would save about 6 months on the construction time)
The gunnery performance of the KGV is little different from any other BB in similar weather conditions - few people understand the issues of trying to shoot a 15" shell on a ship flexing in a moving seaway. The KGV were also as fast or faster than all contemporary designs. Steam plants could have been improved, but again the true power isn't the stated power - plants could and were operated at higher than 'maximum' power, and the lower performance plants could be forced to a higher overspec.
A baby Nelson class would be a poor design. If built, it would be more like a modern Renown, with better armour. Which would btw, be perfect for chasing down raiders and enemy cruisers. Ironically WW2 would see BB's used as battlecruisers, rather than the other way around as in WW1...
They wouldn't take much less time to build, btw - about 6 months at best, even with the armament not an issue(btw, you still have to rebuild the R-class turrets...), you still have the FCC, armour and machinery to build.
One final thing - Tony Williams is excellent on guns - a world expert. He is NOT (self-admittedly) a naval expert, and so except on some gunnery experts his opinion there should be taken with some care.
Umm, the 4.7 inch QF Mark IX mount was about 3 tons, while the QF 2 pounder Mark V octuple mount was at least 12 tons. Even the Mark VII quad mount would've weighed twice what a 4.7 mount would weigh. Unless I'm missing something.
You definitely are - I think you are looking at the weight of a single gun.
4.7" Mk IX mount - 25t
2x guns - 6t
Plus additional weight/space for the ammunition handling.
Should allow a couple of twin 40mm as well as a big power operated mount in X position.