Fresh water production was a huge problem for them, particularly in the hot Indian Ocean. However, the main problem with the R class BBs was that they were a wartime expedient design and were built specifically for short range operations in the North Sea and given the limitations inherent in their design their long term growth potential is limited. For a resource strapped country like Great Britain in the 1930s, significant upgrades to the Rs quickly reach the point of diminishing returns and the money is much better spent elsewhere. Their singular use in WWII was as convoy escorts and old HMS Ramillies even sent the Twins packing and for convoy escort duty they don't need expensive upgrades. They are good enough to scare off or outright sink anything the Germans might send at them not named Bismarck or Tirpitz.
Deep refitting British Capital Ships in the 30s
- Thread starter Cryhavoc101
- Start date
Fresh water production was a huge problem for them, particularly in the hot Indian Ocean. However, the main problem with the R class BBs was that they were a wartime expedient design and were built specifically for short range operations in the North Sea and given the limitations inherent in their design their long term growth potential is limited. For a resource strapped country like Great Britain in the 1930s, significant upgrades to the Rs quickly reach the point of diminishing returns and the money is much better spent elsewhere. Their singular use in WWII was as convoy escorts and old HMS Ramillies even sent the Twins packing and for convoy escort duty they don't need expensive upgrades. They are good enough to scare off or outright sink anything the Germans might send at them not named Bismarck or Tirpitz.
That might be true, but the OP is to give as many of the 13 pre-Jutland ships as possible a deep refit in the 1930s.
SsgtC
Banned
And even then, they could probably give a good account of themselves. Not sure if they could actually force B&T to withdraw, but they could definitely make the cost higher than the KM would be willing to pay.
While limited in their potential for upgrades by comparison to the QE class they are probabaly still more able to be upgraded then most of their contemporary designs.
For example they are significantly larger then the US Battleships built at the same time in dimensions, gun size and displacement.
They were also very cramped to meet, so rebuilding an R Class to the same standard as the Warapite or the QE would be a more fiddly and mire expensive job.
FWIW my opinion is that giving the R class Warspite style modernisations wasn't worth the effort either.
I'd only spend the £5 million over 1930-37 required to upgrade the partial modernisations of Barham, Malaya and Repulse to full modernisations.
However, the OP is to give as many of the 13 pre-Jutland ships as possible a Warspite-type modernisation. There is scope to do this to the R class as part of the long refits that the ships had between 1933 and 1939. Though what I would do was increase the elevation of the main armament, fit new machinery and fit a new superstructure.
Incidentally the WNT counted Hood as a post-Jutland ship and some of the extracts from Cabinet documents that I have posted in this thread say that Hood, Nelson and Rodney didn't need to be modernised.
IOTL the only reason why the existing battleships were modernised in the first place was because the Government didn't want to pay for the 10 battleships it was allowed to lay down 1931-36 under the WNT's replacement schedule.
The cost of giving all 12 pre-Jutland ships a Warspite-type modernisation was the same as building 4 new 35,000 ton battleships and the cost of a Renown-type modernisation was equal to the cost of building 5 new 35,000 ton battleships. If HM Government had been willing to spend that sort of money in 1930 it would have been better off negotiating a LNT that allowed it to start building new battleships in 1931, but at the rate of one per year.
My personal opinion is that the proposed refit of Hood would not have been very cost effective. It would only extend the service life of the ship by 10 years and the cost of doing it was estimated to be 60% of the price of a new KGV. As HM Treasury had loosened the purse strings considerably after 1936 it would have been better to spend the extra £3 million needed to build a new ship.
The Royal Navy has always thought quantity was as important as quality. It's ships had to be fit for purpose, but they also had to be cheap enough to be built in numbers.
I can't remember exactly when, but sometime between 1922 and 1936 the British were proposing that capital ships be limited to a maximum standard displacement of 25,000 tons and 12 inches as the maximum gun calibre. This was so the UK could afford to build capital ships in the numbers it required.
This was the same logic that produced the Leander and Arethusa classes plus its attempts to reduce the maximum displacements for aircraft carriers from 27,000 tons to 22,000 tons and cruisers from 10,000 tons to 7,600 tons when negotiating the 2nd LNT. It only able to get the other powers to agree to 23,000 tons and 8,000 tons, which IMHO didn't save a worthwhile amount of money and made modernisations of the Illustrious and Colony classes not worth the effort.
I can't remember exactly when, but sometime between 1922 and 1936 the British were proposing that capital ships be limited to a maximum standard displacement of 25,000 tons and 12 inches as the maximum gun calibre. This was so the UK could afford to build capital ships in the numbers it required.
This was the same logic that produced the Leander and Arethusa classes plus its attempts to reduce the maximum displacements for aircraft carriers from 27,000 tons to 22,000 tons and cruisers from 10,000 tons to 7,600 tons when negotiating the 2nd LNT. It only able to get the other powers to agree to 23,000 tons and 8,000 tons, which IMHO didn't save a worthwhile amount of money and made modernisations of the Illustrious and Colony classes not worth the effort.
To affirm the previous post....
A good haggis (and here may be heresy) roasted with a good drizzle of a single malt to sweeten and preserve the moistness (roast covered until the last 15 minutes ) is a thing of pure joy.
Main issue is getting a good haggis. I live as far away from its home as possible , without having penguins for a neighbour, and finding a good haggis vendor can be vexing. But do not write off the "king o' the puddin race" until you have had a good one.
Yeah and battleships are cool (staying on thread there)
Hardly as far away as you but my local butcher does first class Haggis here in France. The proper job. In a sheep's stomach not those modern plastic bag things. All hail the "leader of the sausage people" (Google translation to German and back). I once met a Canadian Haggis smuggler who smuggled illegal real Haggis across the border into the USA.
Maybe spin the refits as some Keyse's Cruisers style investment in industry?
Anyway, as to the OP itself, the aim is to get as many capital ships a Warapite style refit as possible, right?
I'd still say it would make sense to prioritise the most useful ships. So, QE, then Hood, the the Renown Class, then the R Class. Either some would have a major refit, or all of them might have more modest, time efficient refit based on lessons learned.
IOTL the R Class were useful for convoy escot and shore bombardment. If the whole (or most) of the class is modernised along those lines, it could give you a ship useful enough to free up newer, faster more capable ships for front line roles
Anyway, as to the OP itself, the aim is to get as many capital ships a Warapite style refit as possible, right?
I'd still say it would make sense to prioritise the most useful ships. So, QE, then Hood, the the Renown Class, then the R Class. Either some would have a major refit, or all of them might have more modest, time efficient refit based on lessons learned.
IOTL the R Class were useful for convoy escot and shore bombardment. If the whole (or most) of the class is modernised along those lines, it could give you a ship useful enough to free up newer, faster more capable ships for front line roles
Another incidental butterfly that I've just though of is that if all the QEs get upgraded, that would mean more demand for the 4.5 inch gun, perhaps leading to increased or reassigned production, and an earlier introduction as Destroyer armament
According to Naval Weapons the 4.5" gun and its twin Mk II and Mk III mountings were designed in about 1935. That's too late to fit the Mk II mounting to Barham, Malaya, Repulse and Warspite.
However, I think the Director Of Naval Ordnance's Department would have been perfectly capable of designing it in 1930 had the requirement for it existed and HM Treasury provided the necessary money.
In that case the twin Mk III mounting (fitted to Ark Royal) would probably be available in time to be fitted to the Tribal and Javelin classes if it was light enough. Then the Lightning class might be fitted with 4.5" guns in twin enclosed Mk II mountings (or even the twin Mk IV mounting fitted to the Battle class) instead of the enclosed twin 4.7" mountings. We would definitely see the earlier introduction of the single 4.5" gun on the Mk V mounting and have it fitted to the O to W classes of Emergency destroyer.
This would also have some synergy (if that is the right word) with the re-equipment and expansion of what would become the British Army's Anti-Aircraft Command. They developed a single 4.5" AA gun in the 1930s. Already having the 4.5" gun in production would save the Army time and money in the design phase. It should also help with the production of guns and ammunition through economies of scale.
However, the RN single mounting had an elevation of 55 degrees and the Army single mounting had an elevation of 80 degrees. AFAIK the RN couldn't use the Army mounting because it would have imposed excessive topweight penalties because the guns needed to be on higher pedestals to stop the guns recoiling into the ship's deck at high angles of elevation.
The ideal POD would be to adopt the 4.5" calibre in the 1920s so that all the A to I class destroyers and the sloops that had 4.7" guns IOTL could be fitted with it. There was also an AA version that was fitted to Nelson, Rodney, Courageous, Glorious, the minelaying cruiser Adventure and the seaplane carrier Albatross. If this had been a 4.5" gun IOTL perhaps the Army could of adopted it as their heavy AA gun or at least used it as the basis for a new version.
Not necessarily more demand, but certainly more supply and if it's available the DNC's Department might make use of it. E.g. if it had been designed in 1930 instead of 1935 it might have been decided to use 10 Mk II mountings on the KGV class instead of the 8 twin 5.25" mountings.
30 twin Mk II mountings were built for Queen Elisabeth, Renown and Valiant. If all 12 pre-Jutland ships were fitted them that's an extra 90 mountings, but that's over a longer period, 1930-41 instead of 1936-41.
Last edited:
I forgot that I had this...
The twin 4.7" Mk XIX mounting fitted to the Tribal and Javelin classes weighed 25.09 tons, but the twin 4.5" Mk III mounting fitted to Ark Royal weighed 29.75 tons so a substitution is probably not possible.
OTOH the twin 4.7" Mk XX mounting fitted to the Lighting class weighed 37.60 tons, but the twin 4.5" Mk II mounting fitted to the Illustrious class weighed 37.95 tons so it might be possible to make a substitution here.
This graph shows RN funding from 1920-36
The orange line represents the dip in funding in the early 30's that severly weakened the RN. If taking the post 1925 funding as average then the lost funding is:
1929 £2,114,743
1930 £5,855,267
1931 £7,087,701
1932 £7,938,000
1933 £4,658,908
1934 £1,486,443
Total £29,141,064
Perhaps post London Treaty, using the replacement schedule as justification for a reconstruction schedule then we have money for 6 or 7 full reconstructions.
RN thinking by 1929 for the new ships was along the lines of 16A, a more conventional approach than Nelsons. It's basically 3 6" twins, 2 twin 4.7" in 'spindle' mounts, a Tower bridge and minimal aircraft facilities.
1931, in replace of C and D, fully reconstruct QE and Warspite. (back in service 1933.)
1932, in replace of E and F, fully reconstruct Barham and Malaya. (back in service 1934.)
1933, in place of G, fully reconstruct Valiant (back in service 1935.)
1934, in place of H and I, fully reconstruct Repulse and Renown (back in service 1936.)
The QE's would look something like Design 16A above but with 15" turrets.
From 1935, you can give the 4 RL refits (Warspite, QE, Valiant, Renown) to R class or Nelson, Rodney and Hood. Past this point you can replace R class ships for Vanguards.
If I could swing it, I'd convert Ramillies (first up for refit 1933-34) to a training ship and keep Tiger in her place while up to 4 ships are in rebuild, then refit Tiger after 1936.
The orange line represents the dip in funding in the early 30's that severly weakened the RN. If taking the post 1925 funding as average then the lost funding is:
1929 £2,114,743
1930 £5,855,267
1931 £7,087,701
1932 £7,938,000
1933 £4,658,908
1934 £1,486,443
Total £29,141,064
Perhaps post London Treaty, using the replacement schedule as justification for a reconstruction schedule then we have money for 6 or 7 full reconstructions.
RN thinking by 1929 for the new ships was along the lines of 16A, a more conventional approach than Nelsons. It's basically 3 6" twins, 2 twin 4.7" in 'spindle' mounts, a Tower bridge and minimal aircraft facilities.
1931, in replace of C and D, fully reconstruct QE and Warspite. (back in service 1933.)
1932, in replace of E and F, fully reconstruct Barham and Malaya. (back in service 1934.)
1933, in place of G, fully reconstruct Valiant (back in service 1935.)
1934, in place of H and I, fully reconstruct Repulse and Renown (back in service 1936.)
The QE's would look something like Design 16A above but with 15" turrets.
From 1935, you can give the 4 RL refits (Warspite, QE, Valiant, Renown) to R class or Nelson, Rodney and Hood. Past this point you can replace R class ships for Vanguards.
If I could swing it, I'd convert Ramillies (first up for refit 1933-34) to a training ship and keep Tiger in her place while up to 4 ships are in rebuild, then refit Tiger after 1936.