Best warships that should have been built

From the German POV , it really doesn't matter what the RN does. As such they were not a factor in the German war calculus.
The point your making is obvious but the fact is the first post war lesson discussed in Weimar republic - was how to prevent a transatlantic alliance, since that was instrumental in loosing WW-I for them. Further any german action had to assume breaking out into a European wide war....so action against RN would eventually happen and steps had to be taken in preparation. For example any invasion of France had to secure the "low lands" so the KM & LW could initate action against the UK from that launch off point.
How do you add the two together? Action against RN would happen and not a factor in plans.....?
 
Preventing a transatlantic alliance is easy, no U-Boats, no commerce raiding, fight a defensive war at sea, US finds it difficult to get a causus belli that will fly
Easy but totally unbalnced as you just give GB+ total control and access to the world markets without fighting for it without GB fighting BoA.
 
Easy but totally unbalnced as you just give GB+ total control and access to the world markets without fighting for it without GB fighting BoA.
If you aren't fighting GB, that is not a problem. If you are fighting GB who is allied with France, the war will be won or lost on land in France, probably fairly quickly at that, the UK fighting on after France falls is unlikely without hindsight. Fighting the UK on its own, why? What points of conflict/friction with Germany would start a war with the UK, but not France?
 
If you are fighting GB who is allied with France, the war will be won or lost on land in France, probably fairly quickly at that,
WWI would disagree strongly with that.......? (especially early on the best Germany could hope to do was hold the larger French to a stalemate draw sicle cuit working so well so fast is far more hindsight than FoF....IMO)
 
Last edited:
WWI would disagree strongly with that.......? (especially early on the best Germany could hope to do was hold the larger French to a stalemate draw sicle cuit working so well so fast is far more hindsight than FoF....IMO)
WWI was won and lost on land in France, so no that does not disagree. The probably fairly quickly is that with the post WWI strategic situation Germany's ability to maintain a long war is much less, Germany was given something like 24 months of large scale war from its own resources in '39 OTL if I remember Tooze right, ergo it has to be won in that 24 months, or realistically 12 months as that 24 assumed pure defense, which does not win wars
 
WWI was won and lost on land in France, so no that does not disagree. The probably fairly quickly is that with the post WWI strategic situation Germany's ability to maintain a long war is much less, Germany was given something like 24 months of large scale war from its own resources in '39 OTL if I remember Tooze right, ergo it has to be won in that 24 months, or realistically 12 months as that 24 assumed pure defense, which does not win wars
OK I have bolded the "probably fairly quickly at that " part.....

The problem is that giving up the sea war means that GB has at least 10-20+% extra free to fight you and this only gets far worse 6 months down the line once orders from US/Canada build up , you can only give up if you are suire you can steam roll franch in a single year and with WWI telling you thats very risky. (you can anyway hope that trade from East or South can help you fight for more than 12/24 months)
 
The problem is that giving up the sea war means that GB has at least 10-20+% extra free to fight you and this only gets far worse 6 months down the line once orders from US/Canada build up , you can only give up if you are suire you can steam roll franch in a single year and with WWI telling you thats very risky. (you can anyway hope that trade from East or South can help you fight for more than 12/24 months)
That trade from the East and South existed OTL, but the deadline still stood, Germany is more dependent on outside resources to wage WWII than WWI, realistically they have 12 months to win the war or they will eventually be buried anyways, assuming they are fighting alone
 
How do you add the two together? Action against RN would happen and not a factor in plans.....?
It was always seen as a side issue and only had to have a "reasonable chance of success" - in order to proceed. The main aim of any military action was to defeat the Franco-Polish threat and then deal with the fall out. It was expected any military success would aid the planned economical- political expansion eastward, which had already begun in the 1930s -in the wake of the great depression.

This was all pre Hitler but was still doable until Hitler hijacked the whole effort/process , with his FOUR YEAR PLAN in 1936.
 
More Edinburgh class cruisers

MHO is that the Admiralty made a mistake by having the Second LNT reduce the maximum displacement of cruisers from 10,000 tons to 8,000 tons. The intention was to make the number of cruisers the RN required more affordable by reducing the cost of each ship, but my opinion is that it was a false economy.

I don't believe that the Colony, Swiftsure and Tiger classes were failures as fighting ships, but I do think that building more Edinburghs in their place would have been better and that the extra cost wouldn't have been prohibitive.

Although hindsight tells us that the Tigers should have been scrapped at the end of World War II or completed in the late 1940s to their original design an Edinburgh based Tiger would have been able to take an extra twin 6" or 3" gun mounting. However, I think that the larger hull would have been better used fitting a Type 984 radar, plus the Comprehensive Display System and the Direct Plot Transmission data link.
 
Last edited:
Alternative Type 42 Batch 1 Destroyer (Or the "Big Batch 1")

That is the Batch 3 hull and machinery of OTL combined with the Batch 1 payload (except that 42 Sea Dart missiles were carried instead of 24).

24 were ordered 1968-71 in place of the 8 Type 21, 6 Type 42 Batch 1 and first 10 Leander modernisations of OTL. They were laid down 1969-74 and completed between May 1973 and the end of 1978. Each ship took about 3½ years to build.

In common with OTL the Argentine Navy bought a pair of Type 42s, but unlike OTL both of them were built in Britain.

Alternative Type 42 Batch 2 Destroyer (Or the "Big Batch 2")

This was the Batch 3 hull and machinery of OTL combined with the Batch 2 payload (except that 42 Sea Dart missiles were carried instead of 24).

In 1970 the RN had a requirement for 75 destroyers and frigates including 25 Sea Dart equipped ships. This was filled by Bristol and the 24 Type 42 Batch 1 ships built ITTL. However, ITTL the British Government offered to sell 4 of the Royal Navy's Type 42 Batch 1s to Australia after their Light Destroyer project was cancelled. The Australian Government accepted in April 1974 and the British MoD ordered 4 Type Batch 2 ships later in 1974 to replace them. These ships were laid down in 1975 and completed in 1979.

AIUI a land based version of Sea Dart (unsurprisingly known as Land Dart) was planned to replace Bloodhound in the RAF and Thunderbird in the British Army, but it was cancelled as part of the Mason defence review of 1974-75. It wasn't cancelled ITTL. Furthermore, the GWS31 version of Sea Dart survived the 1981 Defence Review of TTL.

Alternative Type 42 Batch 3 Destroyer (Or the "Big Batch 3")

This was the OTL Type 42 Batch 3 enlarged so that it could operate 2 Lynx size helicopters or one Sea King size helicopter.

IOTL 15 Sea Dart armed ships had been ordered to the end of 1978 (2 Invincibles, Bristol, 10 British Type 42 and 2 Argentine Type 42). ITTL the number was 33 (2 Invincibles, Bristol, 24 British Type 42, 4 Australian Type 42 and 2 Argentine Type 42), the TTL Type 42s carried 75% more missiles than the OTL Type 42s ordered so far and Land Dart was being built for the RAF and British Army. Therefore, the cost of Sea Dart was less than OTL due to economies of scale.

This resulted in the Argentine Government ordering 6 Type 42 Batch 3 ships from Vickers at the end of 1978 instead of the 6 MEKO 360 frigates that it bought IOTL. In common with OTL the order was reduced to 4 ships in 1980 with delivery planned for 1983-84. They were delivered to Argentina 1984-85 if the Falklands War doesn't happen and if it does happen they would be sold to Australia.

Meanwhile the Australian Government decided to buy 6 Type 42s built in Australia instead of the 6 Perry class frigates of OTL. In the end only 2 were ordered, but unlike OTL the numbers were made up by the 4 ships ordered by Argentina. Thus the Royal Australian Navy eventually acquired the 10 light destroyers that it wanted, but instead of the domestic DDL design that it wanted it received 8 British built and 2 Australian built Type 42 destroyers.

Alternative Type 22 Frigates

ITTL all Type 22s had the Batch 3 hull and machinery so that they could be armed with a single 4.5" Mk 8 gun.

16 Type 22 Batch 1 were ordered 1974-77 in place of the 4 Type 22 Batch 1, 4 Type 42 Batch 2 and second 8 Leander modernisations of OTL. They were laid down 1975-78 and completed 1979-82.

16 Type 22 Batch 2 were ordered 1978-81 in place of the 4 Type 22 Batch 2 ordered before the Falklands War, the 4 Type 42 Batch 3 and the last 2 Leander modernisations. They were laid down 1978-82 and completed 1983-86.

12 Type 22 Batch 1 would have been completed by the time the Falklands War broke out, that if it still happens ITTL, which is an improvement on the 3 that had been completed IOTL and all things being equal 8 would have taken part in the war. There would also have been 24 Type 42 destroyers, instead of 8 IOTL, but only 4 of them would have had the Type 1022 radar, although that is still an improvement on the 2 ships that had it IOTL.

IOTL 6 Type 22 frigates were ordered after the Falklands War, consisting of 2 Batch 2 and 4 Batch 3 ships. That brought the total built to 14 consisting of 4 Batch 1, 6 Batch 2 and 4 Batch 3 ships ordered 1974-85 and completed 1979-90.

ITTL a total of 16 Type 22s were ordered in the same period and all of them were built to Batch 3 standard. That brought the total to 48 consisting of 16 Batch 1, 16 Batch 2 and 16 Batch 3 ships ordered 1974-85 and completed 1979-90.

Summary

IOTL 36 destroyers and frigates were built for the RN consisting of 8 Type 21, 14 Type 22 and 14 Type 42. There were also 20 Leander class modernisations of 26 planned.

ITTL 72 destroyers and frigates were built for the RN consisting of 48 Type 22 and 24 Type 42. None of the Leander class were modernised because it was decided that building new ships was more cost effective.

Assuming that there were no losses the RN would have had 75 frigates and destroyers in 1990 consisting of Bristol, 24 Type 42, 48 Type 22 and 2 Leanders. The total IOTL were Bristol, 6 Type 21, 14 Type 22, 12 Type 42 and 18 Leander class to maintain the force of 50 destroyers and frigates that was set after the Falklands War, but the actual number was smaller than that.
 
Last edited:
Would either Salamis or an Ersatz Yorck completed for the Dutch post-Great War been of use or is it too early to begin building against Japanese ambitions? I am thinking about these being completed and sold by Imperial Germany versus being kept or scrapped. Would any other minor powers be interested in a Salamis updated post-Jutland and at a favorable price?
 
Would either Salamis or an Ersatz Yorck completed for the Dutch post-Great War been of use or is it too early to begin building against Japanese ambitions? I am thinking about these being completed and sold by Imperial Germany versus being kept or scrapped. Would any other minor powers be interested in a Salamis updated post-Jutland and at a favorable price?
instead of being sold, used to pay outstanding debt with the Netherlands? germany did trade with the Netherlands during ww1
 
Would either Salamis or an Ersatz Yorck completed for the Dutch post-Great War been of use or is it too early to begin building against Japanese ambitions? I am thinking about these being completed and sold by Imperial Germany versus being kept or scrapped. Would any other minor powers be interested in a Salamis updated post-Jutland and at a favorable price?
Salamis belonged to Greece, subject to legal dispute with the German yards over its completion and there was serious discussions over her completion till about 1930. In final form she would had made a pretty decent ship, she was to get deck armor increased up to 5in, modern secondaries, a modern torpedo defence system and oil fired engines for a top speed around 27 knots. Of course that was coming at a cost of 3.25 million pounds to complete her.

Here can be found D’Eyncourt’s reports (in English) to the Greek government for the reconstruction and completion of Salamis in 1929.

First document is his report on the actual Vulcan proposals:


Second document produced about 10 days earlier contains his comments on the Greek Naval Staff technical section minimum proposed changes to the design which Vulcan’s proposals actually exceeded.

 
instead of being sold, used to pay outstanding debt with the Netherlands? germany did trade with the Netherlands during ww1
Sold can include bartered towards debt or to buy do I certainly can accept that. But does the Netherlands want such a ship at that time? And as @Lascaris observes Greece was interested through 1930. A new hull might be better but either hull exists and can be updated and if at a better price gets a navy back into big ships.
 
The Three Cancelled Midway class aircraft carriers (CVB44, CVB56 and CVB57)

Could CVB44 have been laid down at New York Naval Shipyard on 1st July 1944 instead of the Essex class ship Reprisal and been completed after the war instead of being cancelled?

Could CVB56 and CVB57 have been laid down at New York Ship Building Corporation on 10th July 1944 and 21st August 1944 in place of Saipan and Wright?

Two ships would have had SCB.110 refits 1954-57 and the third ship would have had an SCB.110A refit 1957-60. (IOTL Midway & F.D.R. had SCB.110 refits 1954-57 and Coral Sea had SCB.110A 1957-60.)

If the first nine super carriers were still built ITTL the USN would have had 15 larger aircraft carriers in 1968 instead of 12. However, some Essex class would need to be retained in the CVA role to maintain a force of 15 attack carriers while the larger ships were refitting.

IOTL Midway and F.D.R. were to have SCB.101 refits (which were equivalent to the contemporary FRAM I and later SLEP refits) 1966-68 and 1968-70 respectively. However, Midway's refit ended up taking twice as long than intended and costing nearly 2½ times more than intended. This resulted in the cancellation of F.D.R.'s SCB.101 refit.

All other things being equal the plan would be to bring the 4 SCB.110 Midways up to SCB.101 standard in pairs. The first two would be refitted 1966-68 and the second two would follow 1968-70. However, in common with OTL the first pair of refits took twice as long and cost 2½ times more than planned which resulted in the second pair of SCB.101 refits being cancelled.

OTOH it does mean that if the first 3 Nimitz class were still built ITTL the Reagan Administration would have inherited 12 super carriers and 4 Midway class (2 SCB.110A and 2 SCB.101). That would be enough to maintain a force of 15 aircraft carriers plus one in SLEP until Theodore Roosevelt. Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were completed. Whether the TTL American taxpayer was prepared to pay the money required to keep the extra ships in commission and 3 additional carrier air wings is another matter.
 
Kriegsmarine's O-class battlecruisers.
Build those instead of the Bismarck and Scharnhorst class battleships
Why is that a good idea?

The first 2 will still have to be 11" x9 and going to 35,000t rather than S&G will make others build more from 35......

Then you have the problem that they cant actually fight the Franch if you end up in a war without GB due to the useless protection v S&D 13.5" guns.....
 
Would either Salamis or an Ersatz Yorck completed for the Dutch post-Great War been of use or is it too early to begin building against Japanese ambitions? I am thinking about these being completed and sold by Imperial Germany versus being kept or scrapped. Would any other minor powers be interested in a Salamis updated post-Jutland and at a favorable price?
Depends how short ATL's Great War is. Before WWI the Netherlands was planning to build/buy a fleet of battleships. Even though the Netherlands didn't actually fight in the war, it still had budgetary consequences. During the interbellum the Netherlands focused on a - much cheaper - fleet of submarines. It wasn't until 1940 that the Dutch navy had capital ships on its wishing list.
 
Depends how short ATL's Great War is. Before WWI the Netherlands was planning to build/buy a fleet of battleships. Even though the Netherlands didn't actually fight in the war, it still had budgetary consequences. During the interbellum the Netherlands focused on a - much cheaper - fleet of submarines. It wasn't until 1940 that the Dutch navy had capital ships on its wishing list.
In almost any TL with some version of a CP victory the war is over but the peace is not as outwardly settled. Each great power and the lesser powers will need to remain armed in some better measure. The alliances will remain and relationships cross-cut. The Dutch hang between Germany and Britain, their greatest threat is Japan, a British ally, they pose a threat to Australia, yet Dutch oil is part of the British economic sphere. I do not think they need a large fleet but do need to begin building towards a more complex naval capability to defend the DEI far away. The true threat may be 20 plus years away but one builds a navy over decades. A single big ship could be where the Dutch learn. The same applies to a lot of other navies.
 
Alternative Type 42 Batch 1 Destroyer (Or the "Big Batch 1")

That is the Batch 3 hull and machinery of OTL combined with the Batch 1 payload (except that 42 Sea Dart missiles were carried instead of 24).

24 were ordered 1968-71 in place of the 8 Type 21, 6 Type 42 Batch 1 and first 10 Leander modernisations of OTL. They were laid down 1969-74 and completed between May 1973 and the end of 1978. Each ship took about 3½ years to build.

In common with OTL the Argentine Navy bought a pair of Type 42s, but unlike OTL both of them were built in Britain.

Alternative Type 42 Batch 2 Destroyer (Or the "Big Batch 2")

This was the Batch 3 hull and machinery of OTL combined with the Batch 2 payload (except that 42 Sea Dart missiles were carried instead of 24).

In 1970 the RN had a requirement for 75 destroyers and frigates including 25 Sea Dart equipped ships. This was filled by Bristol and the 24 Type 42 Batch 1 ships built ITTL. However, ITTL the British Government offered to sell 4 of the Royal Navy's Type 42 Batch 1s to Australia after their Light Destroyer project was cancelled. The Australian Government accepted in April 1974 and the British MoD ordered 4 Type Batch 2 ships later in 1974 to replace them. These ships were laid down in 1975 and completed in 1979.

AIUI a land based version of Sea Dart (unsurprisingly known as Land Dart) was planned to replace Bloodhound in the RAF and Thunderbird in the British Army, but it was cancelled as part of the Mason defence review of 1974-75. It wasn't cancelled ITTL. Furthermore, the GWS31 version of Sea Dart survived the 1981 Defence Review of TTL.

Alternative Type 42 Batch 3 Destroyer (Or the "Big Batch 3")

This was the OTL Type 42 Batch 3 enlarged so that it could operate 2 Lynx size helicopters or one Sea King size helicopter.

IOTL 15 Sea Dart armed ships had been ordered to the end of 1978 (2 Invincibles, Bristol, 10 British Type 42 and 2 Argentine Type 42). ITTL the number was 33 (2 Invincibles, Bristol, 24 British Type 42, 4 Australian Type 42 and 2 Argentine Type 42), the TTL Type 42s carried 75% more missiles than the OTL Type 42s ordered so far and Land Dart was being built for the RAF and British Army. Therefore, the cost of Sea Dart was less than OTL due to economies of scale.

This resulted in the Argentine Government ordering 6 Type 42 Batch 3 ships from Vickers at the end of 1978 instead of the 6 MEKO 360 frigates that it bought IOTL. In common with OTL the order was reduced to 4 ships in 1980 with delivery planned for 1983-84. They were delivered to Argentina 1984-85 if the Falklands War doesn't happen and if it does happen they would be sold to Australia.

Meanwhile the Australian Government decided to buy 6 Type 42s built in Australia instead of the 6 Perry class frigates of OTL. In the end only 2 were ordered, but unlike OTL the numbers were made up by the 4 ships ordered by Argentina. Thus the Royal Australian Navy eventually acquired the 10 light destroyers that it wanted, but instead of the domestic DDL design that it wanted it received 8 British built and 2 Australian built Type 42 destroyers.

Alternative Type 22 Frigates

ITTL all Type 22s had the Batch 3 hull and machinery so that they could be armed with a single 4.5" Mk 8 gun.

16 Type 22 Batch 1 were ordered 1974-77 in place of the 4 Type 22 Batch 1, 4 Type 42 Batch 2 and second 8 Leander modernisations of OTL. They were laid down 1975-78 and completed 1979-82.

16 Type 22 Batch 2 were ordered 1978-81 in place of the 4 Type 22 Batch 2 ordered before the Falklands War, the 4 Type 42 Batch 3 and the last 2 Leander modernisations. They were laid down 1978-82 and completed 1983-86.

12 Type 22 Batch 1 would have been completed by the time the Falklands War broke out, that if it still happens ITTL, which is an improvement on the 3 that had been completed IOTL and all things being equal 8 would have taken part in the war. There would also have been 24 Type 42 destroyers, instead of 8 IOTL, but only 4 of them would have had the Type 1022 radar, although that is still an improvement on the 2 ships that had it IOTL.

IOTL 6 Type 22 frigates were ordered after the Falklands War, consisting of 2 Batch 2 and 4 Batch 3 ships. That brought the total built to 14 consisting of 4 Batch 1, 6 Batch 2 and 4 Batch 3 ships ordered 1974-85 and completed 1979-90.

ITTL a total of 16 Type 22s were ordered in the same period and all of them were built to Batch 2 standard. That brought the total to 48 consisting of 16 Batch 1, 16 Batch 2 and 16 Batch 3 ships ordered 1974-85 and completed 1979-90.

Summary

IOTL 36 destroyers and frigates were built for the RN consisting of 8 Type 21, 14 Type 22 and 14 Type 42. There were also 20 Leander class modernisations of 26 planned.

ITTL 72 destroyers and frigates were built for the RN consisting of 48 Type 22 and 24 Type 42. None of the Leander class were modernised because it was decided that building new ships was more cost effective.

Assuming that there were no losses the RN would have had 75 frigates and destroyers in 1990 consisting of Bristol, 24 Type 42, 48 Type 22 and 2 Leanders. The total IOTL were Bristol, 6 Type 21, 14 Type 22, 12 Type 42 and 18 Leander class to maintain the force of 50 destroyers and frigates that was set after the Falklands War, but the actual number was smaller than that.
That's great a far more useful fleet in the 80s and 90s but my first thought was 'what about crewing?'

Type 21 = 179
Leander = 260
Type 42 = 250ish depending on source - some as high as 300
Type 22
  • Batch 1: 222
  • Batch 2: 273
  • Batch 3: 250
Bristol = 397

So having larger fleet of type 42s and type 22s is going to need significantly more manpower over OTL which is quite costly as you know

There would also have to be an increase over OTL in harbour facilities (probably more a case of maintaining more existing facilities over OTL) and a larger RFA which also costs money and resources.

I think that gap would have to be absorbed by having fewer hulls (but probably still far more over OTL) - and have Bristol paid off as the training ship at HMS Excellent (replacing HMS Kent earlier) in Portsmouth.

I can also imagine that with so many Type 22s that no type 23 would be required to replace the Leanders and older ships and no new class would be required before the noughties leaving very little for shipyards to build during the 90s - especially when the peace dividend kicks in.

But that is unlikely to shape thinking in the late 70s and with more hulls that is more refits.

You mention greater development and more effective cost overheads for Sea Dart given the greater number of ships and users along with 'Land Dart'

In the same vein we would probably see greater and faster development of the Sea Wolf system including the light 4 cell system and VL although I cannot see Rapier being replaced with Land Wolf (although the CAMM system seems to have replaced missiles in all 3 services today!!)?
 
Top