British 1930 naval rearnament possibilities.

I have just been reading a book by corelli barnett called engage the enemy more closely. Its a book about the RN in the second world war.

The following section caught my eye

" This combination of financial and technological weakness impelled the cabinet more than once between 1935 and 1938 to reject proposals for a "new standard navy" big enough to secure european waters and the atlantic while ate the same time deterring or fending of a japanese attack in the far east- 20 battleships, 15 aircraft carriers, 100 cruisers, 198 destroyers, 82 submarines. Instead the rearmament programme aimed at a navy of 15 capital ships, 8 aircraft carriers, 70 cruisers, 144 destroyers and 55 submarines by 1940 - in fact a fleet not greatly larger than that of 1936 except in cruises, but composed of new or modernised ships rather than worn out or obsolete"

I have the following questions.

Could this programme have of been carried out?
If not what POD would be required to allow the "new standard navy" to be built?
If it had what would the fleet look like and what ships would have been built?
How would this affect WW2?
Would the FAA have of been returned to the navy earlier than 1937?

(assume for the last 3 questions that the descion to build this fleet took place in 1935)
 
I have just been reading a book by corelli barnett called engage the enemy more closely. Its a book about the RN in the second world war.

The following section caught my eye

" This combination of financial and technological weakness impelled the cabinet more than once between 1935 and 1938 to reject proposals for a "new standard navy" big enough to secure european waters and the atlantic while ate the same time deterring or fending of a japanese attack in the far east- 20 battleships, 15 aircraft carriers, 100 cruisers, 198 destroyers, 82 submarines. Instead the rearmament programme aimed at a navy of 15 capital ships, 8 aircraft carriers, 70 cruisers, 144 destroyers and 55 submarines by 1940 - in fact a fleet not greatly larger than that of 1936 except in cruises, but composed of new or modernised ships rather than worn out or obsolete"

I have the following questions.

Could this programme have of been carried out?
If not what POD would be required to allow the "new standard navy" to be built?
If it had what would the fleet look like and what ships would have been built?
How would this affect WW2?
Would the FAA have of been returned to the navy earlier than 1937?

(assume for the last 3 questions that the descion to build this fleet took place in 1935)

Well after WW1 the American, Japanese, and British navies were kind of limited in what they could build, etc. One of the only reasons the British were so behind in numbers and tech concerning the ships was due to not breaking the treaty earlier than Japan and America.

I bet if that treaty was never signed, we'd see some super fleets taking each other out in large battles. I think a bigger emphasis on the naval aspects of the war would be expected. Maybe the Royal Navy could outright blockade the German coast like in WW1 and slap the Kriegsmarine around.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
I bet if that treaty was never signed, we'd see some super fleets taking each other out in large battles. I think a bigger emphasis on the naval aspects of the war would be expected. Maybe the Royal Navy could outright blockade the German coast like in WW1 and slap the Kriegsmarine around.

You mean like they did OTL? :confused:
 
I wouldnt say the royal navy "slapped the kriegsmarine around", it took until june 1943 for the u - boat menace to be contained, only 3 of the germans mayjor surface units were sunk by the RN unaided, the Graf Spee in dec 39, Bismark in may 41 and Scharnhorst in Dec 43, during the norwegian campaign though the RN did inflict heavy losses on the KM, strategicaly the KM won a victory.

The italians of course were a different matter.

I can think of three mayjor differences that this sort of navy would give up to Dec 40.

(1) No Battle of Britain - the germans dont even think of invasion, there would still be air attacks but against industry dockyards etc.

(2) no norwegian campaign or a victory for the allies as the KM gets sunk en route.

(3) More sucess against surface raiders ie no cases of Converted liners fighting pocket battleships or battleships.
 
Such a fleet may have been possible, it would need to be started earlier than OTL re-armament, but depression-relief/employment-creation could be a handy reason to get started on modernisations and build up to Treaty limits.

Another major problem with the RN is political. The FAA being in RAF hands skewed carrier design and fleet tactics because the FAA planes were so dodgy. Armoured hangar carriers were needed because the RN felt that their curent and envisaged aircraft wouldn't be able to keep attackers at bay. Similarly politics drove ship design when the Treayies allowed for re-armament, so the RN had to build 35,000 ton BB and 22,000 ton CVs which were less then they could/should have been. In my mind the belief in these treaties by 1937 was ludicrous and forced the RN to develop a new 14" gun-quad turret combo for its new BBs, and then develop yet another twin turret at the last minute. A cheaper and faster alternative would have been a development of the 16" triple of the Nelsons, but that wasn't in keeping with the idea of naval limitation.
 
Top