British Weapons Enter Service A Year Earlier

The Power Jets W.2B engine success coincided with the discovery, or creation of Nimonic 80, per LB Pfeil, of the Mond Co., Hereford. Development of more powerful and more reliable engines await the birth of Nimonic 80a, 4 years later, per Nene and Ghost. Whittle could have made an engine sooner, but a reliable engine likely has to wait for the stuff to build it with.
It's permissible to invent the stuff to build reliable jet engines with a year earlier and even earlier than that if a plausible explanation on how it is invented can be provided.
 
Which is obviously dependant on some serious money being invested in R&D. Something Power Jets didn't have, so advancing the timetable appears to be a non starter.
At least half of what has been proposed so far would only be possible by spending more money on the armed forces and their supporting industries between the world wars so Whittle finding a sponsor able to spend serious amounts of money on his invention is permissible.
 
The Power Jets W.2B engine success coincided with the discovery, or creation of Nimonic 80, per LB Pfeil, of the Mond Co., Hereford. Development of more powerful and more reliable engines await the birth of Nimonic 80a, 4 years later, per Nene and Ghost. Whittle could have made an engine sooner, but a reliable engine likely has to wait for the stuff to build it with.

I thought the alloy started with 'R' but no mind. Why was it invented? Would the search for reliability drive alloy development or design to reduce reliance on fancy alloys or most likely; both?

Which is obviously dependant on some serious money being invested in R&D. Something Power Jets didn't have, so advancing the timetable appears to be a non starter.

Nimonic 80 was developed without serious R&D from Jet propulsion, so with Jets as a possible driver alongside the OTL factors it might be invented sooner.
 
If we bring the RR Vulture forward by a year then there would be time for it to be fixed and produced. IOTL they sorted it just as it was cancelled. Maybe it could remove the need for the Griffon as well as the Sabre? Vulture Fireflies in 1942.
It's permissible to bring all the aero engines begun from 1930 onwards IOTL forward by one year. That's either by starting them a year earlier and/or by accelerating their R&D programmes. Service entry even earlier than that is allowed if a plausible reason can be given.

However, my personal preference would be to find a way for the Griffon to be ready for production in 1940 and to have the Peregrine and Vulture not happen in the first place. The first aircraft to enter service would be a fleet fighter in place of the Fulmar (effectively the Firefly) and a monoplane torpedo-dive-bomber (TBD) instead of the Albacore (effectively a Griffon powered Barracuda).

AFAIK Rolls Royce started work on a development of the Buzzard called Griffon in the early 1930s but it had to be abandoned to concentrate on the Merlin and the Griffon that we know was begun about 5 years after the earlier engine was abandoned. There was no direct relationship between the Buzzard-based Griffon and its later namesake AFAIK. However, had Rolls Royce the resources to continue with development of the original Griffon it (or even the later Griffon) could have been in production by the end of 1939. This would in part be achieved by using the resources employed on the Peregrine and Vulture IOTL.
 
Last edited:
The Buzzard developed into the R and had simiar characteristics to OTL's Griffon even
though the two were unrelated in terms of development. Concentrate on optimising
this lineage for mass production and ... Well, engine development would be completely
unrecognisable from the 30s onwards.
 
Following on from my early Griffon ideas with the Manchester, perhaps this leads to
earlier specialiation of the Merlin for high altitude, and the "Lancaster" ITTL is designed
as a High Altitude Bomber a la Wellington.
 
In the late 30s Britain had a total of 9 large gun pits capable of reconditioning the twin 15" Mk1n Turrets found on the refits and/or making new turrets for the KGVs / Lions and from what I recall reconditioning a turret or building a new one took about 8-12 months - if you start stacking up turrets to recondition then you are not building new ones - the Italians had the same issue in their rebuilds seriously delayed the modern units.
Going back to the early 1920s the Admiralty wanted to retain enough capacity so that 2 capital ships a year could have been built from the early 1930s. Instead of simply paying capacity retention subsidies the Admiralty (which has more money) retains some of that capacity by reconditioning the 15" turrets instead of paying capacity retention subsidies.

IOTL all the 15" gunned capital ships had long refits between the early 1920s and the middle 1930s anyway. The first ship to have that refit would have its existing turrets removed for reconditioning and replaced with the turrets removed from Courageous and Glorious. The reconditioned turrets would be installed on the next ship to have a long refit and the turrets they replaced would go back to the factory for reconditioning. The turrets from ship two would be installed on ship three whose reconditioned turrets would be fitted to ship four and so on until the reconditioned turrets from ship thirteen were fitted to ship one.
 
Going back to the early 1920s the Admiralty wanted to retain enough capacity so that 2 capital ships a year could have been built from the early 1930s. Instead of simply paying capacity retention subsidies the Admiralty (which has more money) retains some of that capacity by reconditioning the 15" turrets instead of paying capacity retention subsidies.

IOTL all the 15" gunned capital ships had long refits between the early 1920s and the middle 1930s anyway. The first ship to have that refit would have its existing turrets removed for reconditioning and replaced with the turrets removed from Courageous and Glorious. The reconditioned turrets would be installed on the next ship to have a long refit and the turrets they replaced would go back to the factory for reconditioning. The turrets from ship two would be installed on ship three whose reconditioned turrets would be fitted to ship four and so on until the reconditioned turrets from ship thirteen were fitted to ship one.

Slightly better, recondition the turrets from Courageous & Glorious before the 1st ship comes in for refit.
As it arrives the reconditioned turrets can go in, and the old ones go for refit so they can be put on to the 2nd ship coming for refit.

That way there is a line of reconditioned turrets ready and waiting when the ships come in for refit.

And (possibly) the option to change one or more of the KGV design to take either 4 reconditioned turrets waiting for a ship, or put the guns into 3 triples with a smaller change to the design for DoY, Anson, and/or Howe.
Can't see that happening for KGV or PoW as they would be too far along in the build process before the treaty collapsed, allowing for increased gun size.
 
I'd say stick with the Quad 14" and have all 3 turrets as Quads and build 6 units (the 6th being Vanguard as a KGV) as quickly as possible from Jan 1st 1936 and don't bugger about with the turrets or Guns stick with 3x4x14" and be done with it. The delay in designing and building the twin 14" turrets delayed the ship's - deal with the stability issues and get them built ASAP. If time allows the follow on 6 Lions can have more time spared on them

As for the 5.25" guns their range and max altitude make a lot sense when you consider than in 1936 Bombers are flying higher and faster carrying more bombs and Destroyers/Crusiers are getting bigger and firing torpedos from further away - radar directed twin 5" guns firing Proximity fused ammo is science fiction at this time.

As is the practical application of Radar so the shagbats stay as well

Draw a line under the design as early as possible, order them all in 1936 and get building them ASAP laid down as close as possible to Jan 1st 1937 - have all launched by end of year 1939 (plan to lay down the Lions as soon as the slipway is free!) and all 6 in commission in 1940/41 and the Lions plan to be launched during 42 and all in commission by 1944 - War notwithstanding!

- perfection is the enemy of the good enough as they say! (it might have been Arther C Clark wot said it)
Unfortunately sticking to three quadruple 14" turrets won't make any difference if this is anything to go by.
My copy has these dates - Provisional / Actual. Preston says the provisional dates were drawn up in February 1936.

Order for the gun mountings - Apr 36 / Apr 36

Order for two ships - Sep 36 / Jul 36

Laying down of two ships - Feb 37 / Jan 37

Launch - Jan 39 / Feb & May 39

1st turret installed - Mar 39 / Feb 40

2nd turret installed - May 39 / Apr 40

3rd turret installed - Dec 39 / May 40

Completion of ships - Jul 40 / Dec 40 & Mar 41
The above quote is from Battleships 1856-1977 by Anthony Preston via the Royal Navy Sanity Options thread.

KGV and PoW were ordered in the 1936-37 estimates and both ships were laid down on 1st January 1937. DoY, Howe and Anson were ordered in the 1937-38 estimates. They were to have been laid down in 1938, but this was brought forward to May to July 1937. So they were laid down as close as possible to 1st January 1937 anyway.

However, bringing the switch from nine 15" in three triple turrets to twelve 14" in three quadruple turrets forward by a year earlier and ordering the turrets in April 1935 instead of April 1936 is allowed. Ordering other long lead items like the armour and machinery a year earlier is allowed too. Then we can theoretically have KGV completed in December 1939 (6 months earlier than scheduled IOTL) and PoW competed in March 1940 (3 months earlier than scheduled IOTL).

Completing the armament, armour and machinery for KGV and PoW a year earlier will help the next 3 capital ships even if their long lead items weren't ordered a year earlier (which they are ITTL). DoY was completed a year late in November 1941 so ITTL she would be completed in November 1940 or earlier. Anson and Howe were completed 17 and 21 months late, in part because they were suspended for a time due to in the invasion scare in the summer of 1940. However, if they were more advanced in the summer of 1940 due to the earlier delivery of the armour, armament and machinery they would not have been suspended and been completed in January 1941 and December 1940 respectively.

Completing the long lead items for the KGV class a year earlier in turn allows work on the armament, armour and machinery for the Lion class to be begun a year earlier.

Lion and Temeraire were ordered in the 1938-39 Estimates (that is the financial year that ran from 1st April 1938 to 31st March 1939). The former was laid down at VA Tyne in July 1939 and the latter at Cammell Laird in June 1939. These shipyards also built the KGV and PoW and as far as I can tell by their launching and laying down dates Lion and Temeraire were built on the same slipways. Therefore its likely that ITTL the ships will have been laid down a few months earlier than OTL. As construction was more advanced ITTL it might be better to suspend them and then complete them later in the war using the resources used to build Vanguard instead of breaking them up on the slips.

Conqueror and Thunderer ordered in the 1939-40 Estimates from the yards that built DoY and Howe, but had not been laid down when war was declared. IOTL DoY was launched in February 1940 and Howe in April 1940 so had war not been declared I think Conqueror and Thunderer would not have been laid down until the summer of 1940. However, if DoY and Howe had been launched 2 years after laying down as was planned for KGV and PoW then they would have been launched in May 1939 and June 1939 respectively. In that case Conqueror and Thunderer might have been laid down in the summer of 1939. However, it is likely that they would have been suspended and broken up on the slips following the outbreak of World War II.
 
I'd like to bring the Westland Whirlwind and the Peregrine forward a year. If it's first flight is October 1937 i/o 1938 with extra time on the Peregrine development before all is abandoned for the Merlin, we may have an ideal bomber killer for the BoB by 1940.

 
Last edited:
This would be harder to do than the KGVs but the 6 armoured aircraft carriers laid down 1937-39 were also seriously delayed. All were planned to be built in exactly 3 years. However, only Illustrious came close to meeting her scheduled completion date. This list has their actual completion dates followed by their planned completion dates.
25/05/1940 - 01/04/1940 - Illustrious - 1 month late
15/05/1941 - 01/05/1940 - Victorious - 12 months late
10/10/1941 - 01/11/1940 - Indomitable - 11 months late
24/11/1940 - 01/06/1940 - Formidable - 5 months late
28/08/1944 - 01/02/1942 - Implacable - 30 months late
03/05/1944 - 01/11/1942 - Indefatigable - 18 months late​

Had Victorious and Formidable (along with the projected expansion of the FAA) been completed on time the Mediterranean Fleet could have attacked Taranto with 3 aircraft carriers instead of one; had 3 times the fighter cover when it met Fliegerkorps X off Malta in January 1941, attacked the Vittorio Vento (if it had survived the TTL Taranto raid undamaged) with 3 times as many aircraft; and had 3 times the air cover off Crete in May 1941.

Indomitable would have taken the place of Victorious in the Bismarck chase. As Indomitable had been completed 6 months earlier than Victorious ITTL she might have had a full-strength air group which was also fully trained.
As I have brought forward the ordering of the long-lead items for the King George V and Lion class battleships forward by a year in Post 89 I'm going to perform a similar trick for the Illustrious class carriers.

That is there is a quicker reaction to German rearmament by the British Government. IOTL full-scale rearmament did not begin until 1936 but hindsight tells us that they should have started in 1934. ITTL I'm splitting the difference with rearmament beginning in 1935.

ITTL the First Report of the Defence Requirements Committee recommended that the aircraft carrier force be modernised and brought up to the 135,000 tons permitted by the Washington Naval Treaty ASAP. Later in 1934 the Government announced plans to build 5 aircraft carriers. 2 were to be laid down in 1936, 2 in 1937 and one in 1938. Each ship would take exactly 3 years to build. By 31st March 1941 (the end of the 1940-41 financial year) there would be the 5 new carriers and Ark Royal. All the older aircraft carriers would have been scrapped or converted to depot ships. The aircraft and aircrew needed for the aircraft carriers were incorporated into the TTL version of the RAF's Expansion Scheme A.

Thus Illustrious and Victorious were ordered in the 1935-36 Estimates instead of the next year's estimates. They were laid down in April and May 1936 respectively instead of a year later. If completed in the same length of time as OTL we would still get Illustrious in May 1939 instead of May 1940 and Victorious in May 1940 instead of one year later. However, ITTL I think Victorious would have been completed sooner than that.

Formidable and Indomitable were ordered in the 1936-37 Estimates instead of 1937-38. However, the long-lead items were ordered in 1935-36. Although the original plan had been to lay them down in 1937 it was decided to bring it forward a year following the Abyssinian Crisis. Therefore Formidable was laid down in June 1936 instead of June 1937 and Indomitable was laid down in November 1936 instead of November 1937. All other things being equal Formidable would have been completed in November 1939 and Indomitable in October 1940 instead of October 1941. However, IMHO ordering the long lead items for these ships a year before the hulls would advance the completion dates by 6 months for Formidable and a year for Indomitable.

The result of all the above was that Illustrious, Victorious and Formidable were completed in the middle of 1939 and Indomitable was completed in October 1939. The abolition of the aircraft carrier tonnage quotas under the Second London Naval Treaty allowed the Royal Navy to retain Argus, Courageous, Eagle, Furious and Hermes which under the original plan had to be scrapped to remain within the tonnage quota. (Under original plan Glorious would have been replaced by the ship ordered in the 1937-38 Estimates).

Meanwhile as IOTL in October the Admiralty changes its plans for aircraft carriers from a force of 6 ships (5 IOTL) to 15 ships (14 ITOL) which the impending abolition of the Washington Naval Treaty tonnage quotas allowed. As a result 2 aircraft carriers were ordered in the 1937-38 estimates instead of the single ship that was previously planned. Their long-lead items were ordered in 1936-37.

These ships were Implacable, which IOTL was ordered in 1938-39 and laid down in February 1939 and Indefatigable ordered in 1938-39 and laid down in November 1939. ITTL Implacable was laid down in February 1938 for completion in the first quarter of 1941 instead of October 1944. ITTL Indefatigable was laid down in November 1937 for completion in November 1940 instead of May 1944.

IOTL the plan in late 1935 was to order 2 aircraft carriers a year 1936-37 to 1940-41 so that when they were completed there would be a force of 14 ships made up of Ark Royal, 10 armoured carriers and the 3 Follies. However, ITTL only one ship (Implacable) was ordered in 1938-39 and one ship (Indefatigable) was ordered in 1939-40. AFAIK only one ship would have been ordered in 1940-41 if war had not broken out. Sources differ on which programme Eagle and Ark Royal were ordered under, but they weren't actually laid down until 1942 and 1943 respectively because the yards were full of ASW escorts and damaged ships.

ITTL the original plan in late 1935 was to order aircraft carriers at the rate of 2 per year until there was a force of 15 ships made up of Ark Royal and 14 armoured carriers. The plan was stuck to ITTL. 2 ships ordered in 1938-39 and laid down by 31st March 1939. 2 ships were ordered in 1939-40 and laid down before 31st March 1940. However, in common with the earlier ships the long-lead items were ordered in the previous year's estimates. Therefore it might be possible to have the 2 ships ordered in 1938-39 completed in the financial year ending 31st March 1942 and the 2 ships ordered in 1939-40 completed by 31st March 1943.

Thus the situation in September 1939 ITTL would be:
  • Illustrious, Victorious and Formidable working up after being completed in the summer of 1939
  • Indomitable nearing completion
  • Implacable and Indefatigable under construction and due for completion by 31st March 1941
  • 2 armoured carriers under construction and due for completion by 31st March 1942
  • 2 armoured carriers on order and due for completion by 31st March 1943
That is a total of 10 aircraft carriers consisting of 3 working up, one nearing completion, 4 under construction and 2 on order.
 
Last edited:
Well we could while no violating the OP premise by introducing a weapon a year earlier, than fails and kills Chamberlain. But yes, that's reaching I'll admit.
If you want an XPD (expedient demise) for Mr Chamberlain then have the aeroplane carrying him to Munich crash.

However, if the British Government does start full-scale rearmament in 1934-35 instead of 1936 HM Forces will be larger and better equipped by the time of the Munich Crisis. IMHO the British prime minister would have been able to stand up to Hilter more effectively regardless of whether it was Chamberlain or Churchill.
 
With Mosquitos in place of Blenheim IVs the Beaufighter has no role in Europe. In the Far East and Pacific it's different as the climate would not be kind to the Mosquito.
 
No ATLs are allowed that interfere with the Beaufighter unless it is to make it even more awesome.
How about Beaufighter with Merlins?

d4dd9ab67860a155e084bb1af81c9afe.jpg
 
How about Beaufighter with Merlins?

d4dd9ab67860a155e084bb1af81c9afe.jpg
ITTL there is noting to stop the Air Ministry issuing a specification of a heavy fighter powered by 2 Merlin engines in 1934 which flies in 1936 and enters service with the RAF in 1938. Unless @Just Leo can provide a plausible reason why "We wouldn't have the technology," to paraphrase Oscar Goldman.

Is that the Rock of Gibraltar in the background?
 
Top