Yah, I wasn't really familiar with the Tribal class. Once I looked it up, I saw my mistake.
Alternative Royal Navy for the 1930s
- Thread starter Cryhavoc101
- Start date
Yah, I wasn't really familiar with the Tribal class. Once I looked it up, I saw my mistake.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
The Warspite Refit took nearly 3 years from Start to recommission but I do wonder how much of this time was unnecessary - obviously there was no real rush back then.
Given a greater sense of urgency - and lets face it the writing was starting to appear on the wall as early as 1934 I would be very surprised if the refit time could not be reduced to 2 years or less. And even if not for the Warspite being the first then certainly for the later refits.
The biggest issue facing refitting of these ship was not the time it takes but actually making the decision to do it (Italy and Japan upgraded all of their WW1 designs as did the US).
The machinery itself?
Well my plan is to use the same layout (roughly) for both the Armoured Fleet carriers and the new battle ships (as well as the same sort of machinery for the refitted vessels)
That is the classic arrangement of 4 shafts being driven by 4 Parson's Turbines powered by 8 sets of 3 drum boilers
So the plant is to be used in all of the capital ship types both CVA and BBs/BCs
Regarding upgrading the guns and turrets to Mk1N standard again I have no idea how long this would take but given that my plan involves upgrading all 54 Turrets in Britain's inventory starting in 1934 there would be something of a 'production line' type effort going on somewhere.
Building a 3 gun Turret is a good idea and time as well as monies not withstanding is what should have been done. But the Twin 15" Mk1 and Later Mk1N where probably the most reliable 'heavy' naval turrets ever built and the risk is that a new design of gun turret would then be delayed, suffer cost and time over runs and suffer teething issues (as pretty much any new military project tends to do). As opposed to the far smaller risk of existing turrets being reconditioned, upgraded and reused!
I am a big admirer of the later French units and the quad turrets on the Jean Bart, it would actually allow the Ship to make do with 2 Turrets improving the armouring scheme (or reducing the armour needed) but the risk and expense is too great IMO.
I agree that this would involve quite a commitment before the 2nd LNT but it was doable IMO and everyone bent the rules - Britain less than everyone else as Britain was desperate not to engage in another arms race and to be seen to uphold the spirit as well as the letter etc.
But with the Axis effectively bowing out of the treaty and in many cases paying it lip service the biggest surprise for me was that Britain didn't do likewise earlier than it did.
So yes I would push for changes in the 2nd Treaty.
As for Tony - fair point but his drive was for efficiency and a more focused and efficient use of resources not just for the Navy but everywhere - from a single class of Transport vehicle to Tanks to battleships. Something that happened late/post war anyway in many cases. You don't have to be a Naval Expert to see and suggest that!
hipper
Banned
There are a couple of different effects if the RAF does not exist the most important one is that the RN maintains it's relationship with the aircraft industry
Ie the aircraft it wants gets built. So for example the Skua gets built with an accurate dive bomb sight. And the Rn maintains an land based air striking force,
I'm sure budget restrictions in the 30's would restrict the total numbers but the doctrine and manpower would be in place.
The RN could decide for itself air defence priorities in Malta Singapore etc.
fighter command could be some joint organisation for the command and control of fighters in the UK ... It was a political decision that forced the Raf to create an integrated defence system, the same drivers exist in an non RAF scenario.
The difference In the Mediterranean alone with Cunningham having efficient shore based striking forces would be dramatic.
Imagine an effective torpedo attack squadron in Malta in 1940 rather than 1942
I'm not sure of the positive benefits the RAF brought by existing other than a realistic appreciation of the need for reserves. And that was gained by the RFC in WW1
Cheers hipper.
One major thing that you need to change is how the navy views, understands and therefore uses submarines, outside of the submarine service itself it seems the rest of the navy massively underestimated the capabilities of them. This goes all the way back to the end of the Great War when there was a very large argument over how effective the German U-boats had been, to the extent that the author of the official history had several key pieces of evidence classified so that they weren't disseminated and it could be 'proven' that the U-boats weren't a real threat. Fast forward to the 30s and a classic example was one of the annual exercises/war games they ran, one of the battleships was hit by a torpedo from a submarine and the judges rules that its speed was reduced by two or three knots but other than that was unaffected. It also didn't help that many regular officers seem to have believed that Asdic had beaten the threat.
If you can get them to take submarines more seriously then they're consequently going to spend much more effort on anti-submarine warfare and come WW2 the German U-boats are going to have a much tougher time of things in the Battle of the Atlantic. Off the top of my head that means they could end up using the exceptions from Article 8 of the Washington Naval Treaty to start building some decent escort ships.
So keep them under 2,000 tons, top speed of 20 knots, enough fuel to get them comfortably across the Atlantic, arm them with 2 twin 4-inch guns, a forward throwing anti-submarine weapon like hedgehog, a couple of 40mm Bofors and as many 20mm Oerlikons as will fit. Some of the traditionalists will bitch and moan but it gives you a very good escort for any future convoys freeing up the limited number of destroyers for actual submarine hunting duties, the Treasury will also like them since they're cheaper than destroyers. Ahead throwing weapons aren't that unlikely since in our timeline they were actually experimenting and developing them but the program was cut for some reason a short while before WW2 started. Whoops.
Another idea would be to hold regular exercises between the escort ships and submarines somewhere out of the way like the west coast of Scotland. They get some good realistic training and you can use the results to beat the holdouts around the head with until they see sense.
If you can get them to take submarines more seriously then they're consequently going to spend much more effort on anti-submarine warfare and come WW2 the German U-boats are going to have a much tougher time of things in the Battle of the Atlantic. Off the top of my head that means they could end up using the exceptions from Article 8 of the Washington Naval Treaty to start building some decent escort ships.
So keep them under 2,000 tons, top speed of 20 knots, enough fuel to get them comfortably across the Atlantic, arm them with 2 twin 4-inch guns, a forward throwing anti-submarine weapon like hedgehog, a couple of 40mm Bofors and as many 20mm Oerlikons as will fit. Some of the traditionalists will bitch and moan but it gives you a very good escort for any future convoys freeing up the limited number of destroyers for actual submarine hunting duties, the Treasury will also like them since they're cheaper than destroyers. Ahead throwing weapons aren't that unlikely since in our timeline they were actually experimenting and developing them but the program was cut for some reason a short while before WW2 started. Whoops.
Another idea would be to hold regular exercises between the escort ships and submarines somewhere out of the way like the west coast of Scotland. They get some good realistic training and you can use the results to beat the holdouts around the head with until they see sense.
I was under the impression that they did get the aircraft they wanted. Whilst not as many aircraft as they would have like IIRC the Royal Navy got to list the specifications for them, it was internal Royal Navy doctrine that saw silly things like two or three seat fighters being put into service. Or was I mistaken?
Nothing close. They didn't even get the inadequate amount promised (Coastal Command was even worse!).
No, the doctrine wasn't silly at the time. Single engine fighters were planned for fleet defence, the twin seaters for offence. Again, the biggest culprit was the RAF, who insisted it wasn't possible for a single man to navigate home.
The speed of the early refits could have been faster, but they would have had to invest earlier in FCC and gun production.
Common engineering sets would have helped, BUT...you need investment in making these as sets, rather than individually.
The problem with upgrading turrets is the shortage of gun pits. Warspite's turrets, for example, were improved to increase range to 30k yards.
There were only 9 pits available in the 30's, that's 9 turrets (and they take time to build/modify). There was a set at Glasgow, but they had been filled in after WW1, they would have taken £2M to reopen - it was planned, but fell down when the heavy ship building stopped in 1939.
The triples on the NelRods were, by 1939, as good as any (once the needed fixes were done). Now this is one thing that's easy - given some money, the fixes could have been done and tested by 1935, and new 15" /16" turrets made accordingly. A new 15" gun isn't a problem, its just a bigger 14" gun.
The French quads had all sorts of dispersion issues caused by the cradling mechanism, there were good reasons the RN didn't copy them.
But the main problem is politics. Until 1935, even the people in the know weren't sure Germany would be a real threat, and the public were even less in favour of war.
Britain certainly had the money (if needed), but something needs to happen to change things by around 1933 at the latest politically. Maybe some sort of crisis that shows up the poor state the defences have fallen into? By 1938, Britain had by far the biggest naval building program in the world, but the building needs to come earlier.
The Treaty has the same political issues. You need political changes for them to be ignored or amended significantly.
So apart from the ahead throwing weapons (like the ones they had been testing since the early 30's), its a sloop.
One possibility that interests me is a modified version of the earlier Arethusa's with the 3 twin 6" but with a quad 40mm in Q position similar to that of the OTL Black Prince class and another quad 40mm in X position superfiring over the aft 6".
[FONT="][/FONT]
The reason they put the 5.25" in the Dido's was to save on 4" mounts.
It was an attempt to do exactly that, a modern Arethusa. Now if they'd left off C turret, and put an multi-barrel there, and added a few more 40mm, it would have been even better.
The other problem was they made the 5.25" mounting too small. Make it the correct size and the ROF goes up noticeably.
One other possibility is a modified Colony. They did a design (K34iirc) on about 7,500t that had 3x3 6" guns.
The biggest problem was that the fleet scout (a) didn't need to be so small, as visual sighting was soon to be obsolescent, and (b) there weren't any fleets to use them against. Italy's fleet tended to run away when it saw the RN, and by 1942 when the IJN was around aircraft had replaced its role to a great extent. Now if someone can realise this earlier, we might have a mix of K34's and an AA frigate (say around 3,000t with 8x4.7" and a load of light AA).
My two penniesworth: Yes ditch the 4.4" and the 5.2" but keep the 4" amd the 4.7" The 4" is a very useful gun on smaller ahips and in its twin form makesa god secondry on ships where a tein 4,7" might be a squeeze. Also the twin 4" males good gun for a general purpose sloop. Astrodragons modifide Tribal would be a very good fleet Destroyer. However for convoy escoet and non fleet work you need some thing cheaper and quicker to build. I would recomend two things, One a sloop using recinpricatimh machinery (cheap and easy to build and lots of merchant seaman engineers to call up to run it) Think of a ling forcastle Flower. twin engeines , transom stern with a twin 4" forward and a PoM Pom aft. The other is a utility destroyer, imn OTL this was the Hunt class that was initialy screwed by faulty design work! (too narrow and unstable) Instead of the Naval Hunt build the Thornycroft from the start, This design was proposed as a private venture to the RN in 1938.
Foe what it is worth, here is a proposal I put together for another time line.
Hunts as built.
So it was that the new vessels were to be 265' long and 28' broad ('Black Swans' were 283' x 38' and the new 'J' class Fleet destroyers 339' x 36'), with a speed of nearly 30 knots. Armament was to be six 4" HA/LA guns in three twin mountings, (two in the first design), and the torpedo tubes of the first design also dispensed with. Furthermore, they were to be fitted with ASDIC submarine detection, depth charges, and stabilizers. Truly a quart in a pint pot!
On 31 November 1938, the Board of the Admiralty gave approval to the design, described as 'Fast Escort Vessels', with a hull length of 278' Overall, 272' Waterline, and 264' between perpendiculars. They were to be 28' 3" broad, and their draught, that is the minimum depth of water required to float, was 7' 11". Displacement was calculated at 890 tons standard, and 1185 tons deep load -fuelled, crewed and ready to go. They were to be armed with three twin 4" guns, two machine guns and two Depth Charge throwers. The crew was to be 142 or 145 Officers and men, and in their small hulls, they were to carry enough oil fuel for 2500 nautical miles (A Statute mile is 5280', and a Nautical mile is 6080') at 15 knots, although their 19,000 SHP engines were capable of 29 knots.
by increasing the beam even further, to 31'6", by redesigning the bridge and setting it further aft,
Thornycroft Hunt, Extended forecastle deck, and modified hull form for more economic steaming at around 20 knots.
Black Swan Length/Beam ratio = 7.45
J class destroyer Length/Beam ratio = 9.42
Hunt as designed Length/Beam ratio = 9.46
Hunt as built Length/Beam ratio = 9.84
Hunt as modified Length/Beam ratio = 8.82
Alternative Hunt class Destroyer/Escort
With Thorneycroft style fo’castle deck extended to just forward of X gun mount deck house (space for quad torpedo tube between deck house and fo’castle deck)
298’ overall, 290’waterline, 280 between perpendiculars, Beam 33ft,
Length/Beam ratio = 9.03
Taking the beam out to 33’ 6” = Length/Beam ratio = 8.89,
This would still be higher than the modified Hunt type III with a 7.5 per cent increase in length and a 20 per cent increase in beam over the original design and 6.5 per cent more than the modified type III.
Forecastle deck extended aft as in Thornycraft Hunts
Power, two Boilers and Turbines, 21,000 shp for 29/30 knts max.
15knt endurance to be 3500 nautical miles.
Three versions, same hull and machinery. Armament optimised for different tasks.
General Purpose,
3 x dual 4” Dual purpose guns, 1 x quad 2pdr pom pom. 2 x twin Vickers 1” AA Cannon, 1 x quad 21” torpedo tubes.
1 x depth charge rail, 2 x depth charge throwers. 40 depth charges
4” guns in A., X and Y mounts. Quad pom pom aft of the funnel, Twin Vickers on bridge wing , (ships boats either side of funnel.) quad torpedo tubes on quarter deck just forward of X mount deck house.
Anti Submarine.
2 x dual 4” Dual purpose guns, 1 x quad 2pdr pom pom.. 2 x twin Vickers 1” AA Cannon
3 x depth charge rail. 6 x depth charge throwers.
Additional stowage for 200 depth charges. (A mount twin 4” replaced by Hedgehog later in war)
4” guns in A. and X mounts. Quad pom pom aft of the funnel, Twin Vickers on bridge wing , (ships boats either side of funnel.) Extra depth charge throwers either side of X mount on quarter deck and depth charge stowage where Y mount was with depth charge launchers either side. Additional depth charge stowage forward of X mount in place of torpedo tubes.
Or alternatively one Squid launcher set replacing all the additional depth charge equipment.
Anti Aircraft
3 x dual 4” Dual purpose guns, 2 x quad 2pdr pom pom. 6 x twin Vickers 1” AA cannons. 1 x depth charge rail 2 x depth charge throwers. Stowage for 40 depth charges.
4” guns in A, X and Y mounts.2 Quad pom pom abreast of each other aft of the funnel, Twin Vickers on bridge wing , (ships boats either side of funnel.) 2 Twin Vickers en-echelon on fo’castle deck extension just forward of X mount. Two twin Vickers at break of quarterdeck.
Thornycroft Mark IV Hunts as built.
Displacement:
1,175 long tons (1,194 t) standard
1,561 long tons (1,586 t) full load
Length:
90.22 m (296 ft 0 in) o/a
Beam:
9.6 m (31 ft 6 in)
Draught:
2.36 m (7 ft 9 in)
Propulsion:
2 Admiralty 3-drum boilers
2 shaft Parsonsgeared turbines, 19,000 shp (14,000 kW)
Speed:
26 knots (30 mph; 48 km/h)
25.5 kn (29.3 mph; 47.2 km/h) full
Range:
950 nmi (1,760 km) at 25 kn (46 km/h) (Brecon)
1,175 nmi (2,176 km) at 25 kn (46 km/h) (Brissinden)
Complement:
170
Armament:
• 6 × QF 4 in Mark XVI guns on twin mounts Mk. XIX
• 4 × QF 2 pdr Mk. VIII on quad mount MK.VII
• 2 × 20 mm Oerlikons on single mounts P Mk. III
• 4 × 0.5 in Vickers machine guns on twin mounts Mk. V, later replaced by 4 × 20 mm Oerlikons on twin mounts Mk. V
• 3 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
• 40 depth charges, 2 throwers, 1 rack
Foe what it is worth, here is a proposal I put together for another time line.
Hunts as built.
So it was that the new vessels were to be 265' long and 28' broad ('Black Swans' were 283' x 38' and the new 'J' class Fleet destroyers 339' x 36'), with a speed of nearly 30 knots. Armament was to be six 4" HA/LA guns in three twin mountings, (two in the first design), and the torpedo tubes of the first design also dispensed with. Furthermore, they were to be fitted with ASDIC submarine detection, depth charges, and stabilizers. Truly a quart in a pint pot!
On 31 November 1938, the Board of the Admiralty gave approval to the design, described as 'Fast Escort Vessels', with a hull length of 278' Overall, 272' Waterline, and 264' between perpendiculars. They were to be 28' 3" broad, and their draught, that is the minimum depth of water required to float, was 7' 11". Displacement was calculated at 890 tons standard, and 1185 tons deep load -fuelled, crewed and ready to go. They were to be armed with three twin 4" guns, two machine guns and two Depth Charge throwers. The crew was to be 142 or 145 Officers and men, and in their small hulls, they were to carry enough oil fuel for 2500 nautical miles (A Statute mile is 5280', and a Nautical mile is 6080') at 15 knots, although their 19,000 SHP engines were capable of 29 knots.
by increasing the beam even further, to 31'6", by redesigning the bridge and setting it further aft,
Thornycroft Hunt, Extended forecastle deck, and modified hull form for more economic steaming at around 20 knots.
Black Swan Length/Beam ratio = 7.45
J class destroyer Length/Beam ratio = 9.42
Hunt as designed Length/Beam ratio = 9.46
Hunt as built Length/Beam ratio = 9.84
Hunt as modified Length/Beam ratio = 8.82
Alternative Hunt class Destroyer/Escort
With Thorneycroft style fo’castle deck extended to just forward of X gun mount deck house (space for quad torpedo tube between deck house and fo’castle deck)
298’ overall, 290’waterline, 280 between perpendiculars, Beam 33ft,
Length/Beam ratio = 9.03
Taking the beam out to 33’ 6” = Length/Beam ratio = 8.89,
This would still be higher than the modified Hunt type III with a 7.5 per cent increase in length and a 20 per cent increase in beam over the original design and 6.5 per cent more than the modified type III.
Forecastle deck extended aft as in Thornycraft Hunts
Power, two Boilers and Turbines, 21,000 shp for 29/30 knts max.
15knt endurance to be 3500 nautical miles.
Three versions, same hull and machinery. Armament optimised for different tasks.
General Purpose,
3 x dual 4” Dual purpose guns, 1 x quad 2pdr pom pom. 2 x twin Vickers 1” AA Cannon, 1 x quad 21” torpedo tubes.
1 x depth charge rail, 2 x depth charge throwers. 40 depth charges
4” guns in A., X and Y mounts. Quad pom pom aft of the funnel, Twin Vickers on bridge wing , (ships boats either side of funnel.) quad torpedo tubes on quarter deck just forward of X mount deck house.
Anti Submarine.
2 x dual 4” Dual purpose guns, 1 x quad 2pdr pom pom.. 2 x twin Vickers 1” AA Cannon
3 x depth charge rail. 6 x depth charge throwers.
Additional stowage for 200 depth charges. (A mount twin 4” replaced by Hedgehog later in war)
4” guns in A. and X mounts. Quad pom pom aft of the funnel, Twin Vickers on bridge wing , (ships boats either side of funnel.) Extra depth charge throwers either side of X mount on quarter deck and depth charge stowage where Y mount was with depth charge launchers either side. Additional depth charge stowage forward of X mount in place of torpedo tubes.
Or alternatively one Squid launcher set replacing all the additional depth charge equipment.
Anti Aircraft
3 x dual 4” Dual purpose guns, 2 x quad 2pdr pom pom. 6 x twin Vickers 1” AA cannons. 1 x depth charge rail 2 x depth charge throwers. Stowage for 40 depth charges.
4” guns in A, X and Y mounts.2 Quad pom pom abreast of each other aft of the funnel, Twin Vickers on bridge wing , (ships boats either side of funnel.) 2 Twin Vickers en-echelon on fo’castle deck extension just forward of X mount. Two twin Vickers at break of quarterdeck.
Thornycroft Mark IV Hunts as built.
Displacement:
1,175 long tons (1,194 t) standard
1,561 long tons (1,586 t) full load
Length:
90.22 m (296 ft 0 in) o/a
Beam:
9.6 m (31 ft 6 in)
Draught:
2.36 m (7 ft 9 in)
Propulsion:
2 Admiralty 3-drum boilers
2 shaft Parsonsgeared turbines, 19,000 shp (14,000 kW)
Speed:
26 knots (30 mph; 48 km/h)
25.5 kn (29.3 mph; 47.2 km/h) full
Range:
950 nmi (1,760 km) at 25 kn (46 km/h) (Brecon)
1,175 nmi (2,176 km) at 25 kn (46 km/h) (Brissinden)
Complement:
170
Armament:
• 6 × QF 4 in Mark XVI guns on twin mounts Mk. XIX
• 4 × QF 2 pdr Mk. VIII on quad mount MK.VII
• 2 × 20 mm Oerlikons on single mounts P Mk. III
• 4 × 0.5 in Vickers machine guns on twin mounts Mk. V, later replaced by 4 × 20 mm Oerlikons on twin mounts Mk. V
• 3 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
• 40 depth charges, 2 throwers, 1 rack
The 2ndLNT limited 6" cruisers to 8000t so the RN couldn't continue with the Southampton/Edinburgh line of development which were 9200/10,500t. So they shrunk it to the Fiji of 8,500t with 12 x 6" guns, but then the Uganda's had 9 x 6" and the Minotaur were the same but with a 5th 4" turret.
I'd just go for the Minotaurs and dispense with the Didos.
I'd just go for the Minotaurs and dispense with the Didos.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
One of the Ideas I was going to float was that the Navy is responsible for everything East of Suez and west of Gib leaving the RAF to garrison Malta and the UK only. IN time of war with an expanding Airforce assets from the RAF and or Dominion forces could reinforce etc but during peacetime a strictly navy affair.
So a Naval Air Defence force operating out of Singapore, Alex and Gib.
This would prevent the RAF from keeping back aircraft for the defence of the Homeland when they were needed elsewhere (ie those damned Rhubarbs in 1941 that cost so many planes and pilots) - no more Hope, Faith and Charity defending Malta while 30 Squadrons of Spitfires sat around the UK in an act of criminal negligence doing nothing apart from sustaining unnecessary casualties over France - How many commonwealth personnel died for the want of a handful of Spitfire Squadrons in North Africa, Malta and the Far East?
Yes I am spitting nails as I write that last bit.
Mm, I've an issue to raise with this, the 4.7" is a nice gun for a dedicated military ship of destroyer size and up, but for sloops/corvettes and converts, the 4" is probably a better choice, small enough to handle fairly easily, while still packing a decent punch.
Driftless
Donor
Very much enjoying the thread! Keep rolling.
One question on overall operational planning for Singapore and other remote bastions. In the OTL for 1941 Singapore, wasn't one of the fundamental problems the ineffective combined planning between RN, RA, & RAF? To be sure, there were a host of other issues too.
Even though this timeline is focused on the Navy, wouldn't the grander strategic scheme factor into planning? I don't have an alternative line of thought there, just as a question.
One question on overall operational planning for Singapore and other remote bastions. In the OTL for 1941 Singapore, wasn't one of the fundamental problems the ineffective combined planning between RN, RA, & RAF? To be sure, there were a host of other issues too.
Even though this timeline is focused on the Navy, wouldn't the grander strategic scheme factor into planning? I don't have an alternative line of thought there, just as a question.
The grander strategic scheme is factored into planning but unfortunately must rest on all sorts of assumptions that have to come out as hoped. For example aircraft proved a much greater threat than was assumed and planned for, on several occasions fleets took losses similar to that of a major surface action but without inflicting corresponding damage to the enemy. Similarly it was assumed that France would be a belligerent and it was planned that it's fleet would handle the western Med, but France was defeated quickly and early.
I know their is a drive towards newer designs but what's to prevent them taking the Flower Class sloop design and tweaking it . Change the armament to bring it up to WW2 standards. They were designed to be built in merchant yards so the price would be lower than if built to navy standards .
The 'R' Class BS - were regarded as convoy protection, where the speed wasn't that important. But yes, with any BS construction they should be the first to go - seems doubtful to me that they were big enough to be 'improved'.
However the Repulse Class BC were a different case, their only saving grace was their speed and 152 guns - but only six! Only some refits, again too cramped for anything extensive.
Whilst HMS Tiger is a bigger ship and fast, snag - the odd (by 30s standards) 13.5" gun size. Why not resize it to 14", could that be done, if not still think the RN would've had plenty of ammo for it! The size of the vessel, gives more scope for an effective refit/reconstruction - something the Japanese did very with their Kongo BSs.
What the RN needed, which so far has not been mentioned, was a 'fleet train' capable of giving refuelling at sea. Operations off Norway suffered because RN ships had to go back to base to refuel/ream.
Be wary of anything drastic with the RAF, politically at the time - in any Defence Review Chamberlain favour RAF spending over the other services - for the deterrent factor (and to keep pace with the Luftwaffe) - especially Bomber Command.
Having effective Torpedo Bombers at Malta, my stop Taranto, it will be a failed daylight attack!!
However the Repulse Class BC were a different case, their only saving grace was their speed and 152 guns - but only six! Only some refits, again too cramped for anything extensive.
Whilst HMS Tiger is a bigger ship and fast, snag - the odd (by 30s standards) 13.5" gun size. Why not resize it to 14", could that be done, if not still think the RN would've had plenty of ammo for it! The size of the vessel, gives more scope for an effective refit/reconstruction - something the Japanese did very with their Kongo BSs.
What the RN needed, which so far has not been mentioned, was a 'fleet train' capable of giving refuelling at sea. Operations off Norway suffered because RN ships had to go back to base to refuel/ream.
Be wary of anything drastic with the RAF, politically at the time - in any Defence Review Chamberlain favour RAF spending over the other services - for the deterrent factor (and to keep pace with the Luftwaffe) - especially Bomber Command.
Having effective Torpedo Bombers at Malta, my stop Taranto, it will be a failed daylight attack!!