British Navy Pre-WW2 Improvements

[Joshuapooleanox]

Let's say Britain had the funding or moved funding over to improve its navy. Say if a more interventionist leader came to power who was willing to increase taxes and raise more money for the navy.

What would be the most efficient ways to do this with extra funding in the 1930's?

And how powerful could it be when improved compared to other navies at the time?

Start date for improvements can be 1934.

Let's say Japan, America, France, Italy and Germany for fleet comparisons.

 

[King Augeas]

Antisubmarine frigates, patrol aircraft and weapons...

...which would seem absurd to your 1930s observer, who sees a handful of U-boats trapped in the North Sea and a new generation of heavy battleships in build in Germany and Italy.

 

[Joshuapooleanox]

Antisubmarine frigates, patrol aircraft and weapons...

...which would seem absurd to your 1930s observer, who sees a handful of U-boats trapped in the North Sea and a new generation of heavy battleships in build in Germany and Italy.

They'd be wondering 'WHY DON'T WE HAVE MORE BATTLESHIPS' probably.

What about Carriers?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Let's say Britain had the funding or moved funding over to improve its navy. Say if a more interventionist leader came to power who was willing to increase taxes and raise more money for the navy.

What would be the most efficient ways to do this with extra funding in the 1930's?

And how powerful could it be when improved compared to other navies at the time?

Start date for improvements can be 1934.

Let's say Japan, America, France, Italy and Germany for fleet comparisons.

That's only a year or two before large scale naval building resumed anyway. You really need to go back to 1929 before the 1st LNT was negotiated and have a British Prime Minister and US President that aren't pro-disarmament.

 

[Joshuapooleanox]

That's only a year or two before large scale naval building resumed anyway. You really need to go back to 1929 before the 1st LNT was negotiated and have a British Prime Minister and US President that aren't pro-disarmament.

Let's try that then.

Thoughts in 1929?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Some things you could do.

OTL Warspite was modernised 1934-37 at a cost of £2.4 million but due to a lack of money Malaya was given a far less extensive modernisation costing £976,963 over the same period. for an extra £1.4 million (or one Arethusa class light cruiser) she could have been refitted to the same standard as Warspite.

Repulse was refitted 1932-36 at a cost of £1,377,748 but Renown was refitted far more extensively 1936-39 at a cost of £3,088,008. For an extra £1.6 million (about the cost of one Leander class cruiser) Renown could have been refitted to the same standard as Renown.

OTL the Royal Navy only had 2 new battleships (Nelson and Rodney) plus 2 fully modernised older ships (Repulse and Warspite) but TTL it would have been 4 and 6.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Let's try that then.

Thoughts in 1929?

How much extra are we allowed to spend? This is the OTL expenditure from the Navy Estimates 1939-40 - Royal Navy Museum, Portsmouth copy.

 

[Joshuapooleanox]

How much extra are we allowed to spend? This is the OTL expenditure from the Navy Estimates 1939-40 - Royal Navy Museum, Portsmouth copy.
View attachment 371730

Let's say Britain partially mobilises in 1929. Churchill is able to lead a Conservative government, and due to instability around the world partially mobilises, state intervention, higher taxation, give yourself a pretty decent increase.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This table from British Naval Policy Between the Wars by Stephen Roskill might be easier to read.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Let's say Britain partially mobilises in 1929. Churchill is able to lead a Conservative government, and due to instability around the world partially mobilises, state intervention, higher taxation, give yourself a pretty decent increase.

For a start personnel numbers would not have been cut down from about 100,000 in 1929 to 90,000 in 1933.

Before I reiterate what I've written in countless other threads, how much do you know about the difference between what the Admiralty wanted and what the Treasury was able to provide? And OTL building programmes?

 

[hipper]

Let's say Britain had the funding or moved funding over to improve its navy. Say if a more interventionist leader came to power who was willing to increase taxes and raise more money for the navy.

What would be the most efficient ways to do this with extra funding in the 1930's?

And how powerful could it be when improved compared to other navies at the time?

Start date for improvements can be 1934.

Let's say Japan, America, France, Italy and Germany for fleet comparisons.

In 1934 the RN was the most powerful Navy in the World what it lacked was an integral Air arm, that’s the first thing it needs. Additional improvments would include a land based aircraft for patroll and strike.
With those additions it needed to invest in increased capacity for guns and fire controll, then it needs to save Beardmores. Finally increase investment in radar. Other than that follow historical rearmament.

 

[SsgtC]

In 1934 the RN was the most powerful Navy in the World

Are you sure about that? I thought that by 1934, they had slipped, barely, behind the USN?

Edit: I'm basing that on purely raw numbers. The RN has a tradition second to none and has always punched way above their weight class

 

[TruthfulPanda]

Some things you could do.
OTL Warspite was modernised 1934-37 at a cost of £2.4 million but due to a lack of money Malaya was given a far less extensive modernisation costing £976,963 over the same period. for an extra £1.4 million (or one Arethusa class light cruiser) she could have been refitted to the same standard as Warspite.

Don't refit - build new.
Start laying down two battleships a year starting 1934. If you are cheap reuse the 15" guns and turrets. You will have 10 brand new battleships by 1941 ...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Don't refit - build new.
Start laying down two battleships a year starting 1934. If you are cheap reuse the 15" guns and turrets. You will have 10 brand new battleships by 1941 ...

Have you read the 1930 London Naval Treaty? It forbade the UK from laying down capital ships until the end of 1936.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Have you read the 1930 London Naval Treaty? It forbade the UK from laying down capital ships until the end of 1936.

But if there wasn't a 1LNT in the first place the UK could have laid down 10 capital ships 1931-36 as permitted by the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922.

 

[SsgtC]

But if there wasn't a 1LNT in the first place the UK could have laid down 10 capital ships 1931-36 as permitted by the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922.

They could, but I don't think they would. The UK was broke. They couldn't afford to build 2 Battleships per year. Maybe one per year

 

[TruthfulPanda]

1 - the UK can say "national security demands we build NOW - and you all whinos can go and fuck yourself".
2 - or if the UK goes with the LNT then lay down three battleships a year starting 1.I.1937. Use 34-36 to build carriers instead, keeping to treaty limits etc. while 10-15% on displacement.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

They could, but I don't think they would. The UK was broke. They couldn't afford to build 2 Battleships per year. Maybe one per year

At £7-8 million per copy a 35,000 ton battleship isn't cheap. However, the main problem wasn't money, it was the lack political will and even more important lack of public support that were the real limiting factors.

The UK wasn't really that much richer after 1936 when it was spending more money on the armed forces than what I would propose for 1930-36. However, I admit that the reduction in the cost of servicing the National Debt that occurred between 1930 and 1935 helped a lot.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Here's another one I did earlier.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Submarines

1923-24 - 1
1924-25 - 2
1925-26 - 0
1926-27 - 6
1927-28 - 6
1928-29 - 4 - 6 originally but cut to 4 as a disarmament gesture.
1929-30 - 3 - 1 LNT in force
1930-31 - 3 - 1 LNT in force
1931-32 - 3 - 1 LNT in force
1932-33 - 3 - 1 LNT in force
1933-34 - 3 - 1 LNT in force
1934-35 - 3 - 1 LNT in force
1935-36 - 3 - 1 LNT in force
1936-37 - 8 - 2 LNT in force
1937-38 - 7 - 2 LNT in force
1938-39 - 3 - 2 LNT in force - 7 were originally planned
1939-40 - 0 - 2 LNT in force - 7 were originally planned

Grand total 58

TTL submarines would have been built at the rate of 6 per year 1928-29 to 1935-36. That is an increase of 23 submarines. OTL the RN had 57 submarines (45 new and 12 old) against a requirement for 82 (7 of which could be over age).

The 1 LNT set the service life of a submarine at 13 years, but it looks as if before that the service life of a British submarine was 10 years because in the early 1920s the Admiralty wanted 80 submarines to be built at the rate of 8 per year.