KGV or Lions in response to ATL German BB

If the Scharnhorst class are 42,000 ton, 8 X 15" gunned ships, the RN builds:


  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
One question I have is, just how long would new twin 15" gun turrets take to build, if they were exact copies of the guns and turrets no most British capitol ships left after the WNT? My idea would be to restart such gun/turret production, while building 6 Vanguard class ships, and to swap the guns/turrets off the old
Your not going to build new 15" twins (well unlikely after all they did build 14" twins so not impossible) as it saves no time over building any other new mounts, so it would be most likely triples.

They do have at least 4 on monitors, + 4 from LLCs + 2 (rebuild as 18" for Furious?) and the 40 (4x10) on QE & R class + 6 (3x2) R&R , and the 4 MK2 on Hood (but she would be rebuilt not lose her mounts etc...) that could be rebuilt for higher elevation, faster and cheaper than building new mounts.

(I think thats all the existing 15" mounts "A total of 186 guns, including two prototypes, and 58 turrets were manufactured between 1912 and 1918." Navweps, the 4+4+2 and 6 on R&R also fits with cancellation numbers of ships at start of WWI.)
 
Last edited:
Your not going to build new 15" twins (well unlikely after all they did build 14" twins so not impossible) as it saves no time over building any other new mounts, so it would be most likely triples.
My point was to reuse the existing guns/turrets, so the 6 notional Vanguards don't have to wait for new guns/turrets. Building replacement guns/turrets, to rearm the older ships and put them back into service gives the RN 6 brand new, 44,500 ton ships that equal or exceed HMS Hood (but not sure when ships this size can enter service, without the need for new guns/turrets to be built for them, I am guessing that this would get these notional ships into service apx one full year faster, but I don't know that for sure), but if you went and tried for triples, then your new ships would be delayed by their construction time. And if the first triple 15" gun turrets should turn out to be sub par, what then?
They do have at least 4 on monitors, + 4 from LLCs + 2 (rebuild as 18" for Furious?) and the 40 (4x10) on QE & R class + 6 (3x2) R&R , and the 4 MK2 on Hood (but she would be rebuilt not lose her mounts etc...) that could be rebuilt for higher elevation, faster and cheaper than building new mounts.
Yea, but none of that does anything for the speed of the ships carrying them, and these rebuilds are going to take time, and whatever ships they are done to will be out of service for some time, how long I cannot know, but keep in mind, none of this can even begin until the UK can point to the incomplete German hulls, and cry foul. Keep in mind that B/T were in fact shorter than R/R, so just going by hull dimensions alone cannot be enough.
(I think that's all the existing 15" mounts "A total of 186 guns, including two prototypes, and 58 turrets were manufactured between 1912 and 1918." Navweps, the 4+4+2 and 6 on R&R also fits with cancellation numbers of ships at start of WWI.)
How long does such a rebuild take, and how long does it take to remove a turret? Could both things be done, in the proscribed plan I came up with, IE, take the old guns/turrets off the R class, rework then for higher elevation fire, and slap them onto the new ships?

What about the KGV's upgraded to 3 quad turrets? This picture make me think that this is not going to be a quick and easy fix after construction begins. For that matter, what about up sizing them to full on 44,500 ton, 4 quad 14" turreted Battleships, with 16 X 14" guns?
 
What about the KGV's upgraded to 3 quad turrets? This picture make me think that this is not going to be a quick and easy fix after construction begins. For that matter, what about up sizing them to full on 44,500 ton, 4 quad 14" turreted Battleships, with 16 X 14" guns?
Changing KVGs would need to be done before they are laid down, so 1 Jan 37 as you need to redesign them to take the massive weight increases.

My point was to reuse the existing guns/turrets, so the 6 notional Vanguards don't have to wait for new guns/turrets. Building replacement guns/turrets, to rearm the older ships and put them back into service
I think you are still limited on speed of new mounts, one question is what about the old 13,.5" mounts in store? I think they had at least IDs 5 so could refit an old R with 8x 13.5" as a very 2nd class BB and free up a Vanguard set, if they have a single extra from tiger on a monitor or a test stand (or make it)? Then they could make 2x 6 gun 13.5" BBs R class ships as with hindsight they would still work as cheap Atlantic escorts or shore bombardment ships? You would probably remove most of the 6" guns as well to reduce crew and just have 6 x twin 4.5" DP in UD MK III mountings?

But this all misses the real big issue that S&G not having 11" guns (and being over weight) would become obvious early on and would be an obvious deliberate breach of the AGNT very shortly after it was signed, GB would not trust anything Germany did an inch from that moment on and this will lead to likely ramping up of diplomatic/land/air support.....
 
Changing KVGs would need to be done before they are laid down, so 1 Jan 37 as you need to redesign them to take the massive weight increases.


I think you are still limited on speed of new mounts, one question is what about the old 13,.5" mounts in store? I think they had at least IDs 5 so could refit an old R with 8x 13.5" as a very 2nd class BB and free up a Vanguard set, if they have a single extra from tiger on a monitor or a test stand (or make it)? Then they could make 2x 6 gun 13.5" BBs R class ships as with hindsight they would still work as cheap Atlantic escorts or shore bombardment ships? You would probably remove most of the 6" guns as well to reduce crew and just have 6 x twin 4.5" DP in UD MK III mountings?

But this all misses the real big issue that S&G not having 11" guns (and being over weight) would become obvious early on and would be an obvious deliberate breach of the AGNT very shortly after it was signed, GB would not trust anything Germany did an inch from that moment on and this will lead to likely ramping up of diplomatic/land/air support.....
While a new battleship with 13.5" guns is a bit undergunned against German 15s they'd outmatch the pocket battleships and would be pretty useful in the Med against the Italians. They'd also be powerful enough in Singapore to make the Japanese wary of them.

For convoy duty, they should be cspable of holding off a German 15" ship for long enough to allow the convoy to scatter, and would at least have a reasonable chance of causing mission-killing damage. Even if all they do is force the German ships to sortie in pairs, that's still useful.
 
But this all misses the real big issue that S&G not having 11" guns
Not having 11" guns isn't a thing, though, as the Italians were already building a pair of ships with 9 x 15" guns, so Germany building a pair of ships with 8 x 15" guns isn't a tripwire, right.
(and being overweight) would become obvious early on and would be an obvious deliberate breach of the AGNT very shortly after it was signed, GB would not trust anything Germany did an inch from that moment on and this will lead to likely ramping up of diplomatic/land/air support.....
This is one of the things that I cannot answer, as the claim is about something that could have been noticed, and since my proposition is that this would take place earlier than historically, it could be noticed earlier.

Historically, the German pair were launched early (but that was the 11" gunned ships) than the Italian ships, which were launched in July and Aug, 1937, and historically, these two ships didn't trigger any alarms like what you are saying the German ships would have caused, and they carried 9 x 15" guns to the German ships 8 x 15" guns.

Scharnhorst launch after just 16 months, while Bismarck launched after 31 months, but only Scharnhorst and Tirpitz were built in the same shipyard, and I'm guessing the same slipway? Meanwhile, G/B were built in two other German shipyards altogether, so their construction wouldn't interact.

While I'm once again touching on the subject, any guesses for alt launch dates for the S/G? I could tack on 15 months to their build times, and that would delay Tirpitz (if they did in fact build S/T on the same slipway), but Bismarck was not sharing the same shipyard, let alone slipway, so her construction could go on as historically, or alternatively, be concurrent with the S/G, as all three were built in different shipyards. For that matter, Graf Zeppelin was laid down 20 days after G was launched, so maybe the Germans were reusing slipways.

If Germany is allowed 35% of the RN's tonnage, that would be 5-7 BB (5 for Britain's 15 WNT BB, and 7 post KGV class), and if Germany only hax three big slipways, why not lay down three ships right off?
 
I actually suspect the main reaction will be France scrambling to get Jean Bart and Richelieu out on time. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with 15in would murder the Dunkuerques and Bretagnes and with the Littorios coming online in the med, France would almost have to escalate.
 
Not having 11" guns isn't a thing, though, as the Italians were already building a pair of ships with 9 x 15" guns, so Germany building a pair of ships with 8 x 15" guns isn't a tripwire, right.
The issue is that Italy was still somewhat a neutral until very late on (with hopes for a WW1 alliance to join GB, France & Italy again) and German had I think said to GB that S&G would have 11" guns, so it's far worse and more than OTL.
 
Your not going to build new 15" twins (well unlikely after all they did build 14" twins so not impossible)
A little OT from what you were responding to, but if the 15” gunned version of KGV were chosen, and the same decision makers were in place, you probably would end up with a twin 15” turret in B position where the twin 14” went IOTL.

The original design for the 14” KGV could have fit 12 x 14” without any more issues than the final product had with 10. What changed was the armour. It was suggested that the armour belt could be raised a full deck level which would improve the designs reserve buoyancy, structural characteristics and resilience. In exchange the deck would have had to have been reduced by 1/2 inch and the upper belt by 1 inch. Chatfield, the First Sea Lord, was a bit protection obsessed, however, and did not like the reduction. Instead, they ended up reducing the armament while restoring the armour thickness and raising the armour belt by a deck level.

If the same path was followed on the 15” KGV, and with the same constructors and First Sea Lord, it probably will, then the triple 15” B turret will probably still be reduced to a twin, leaving the KGV’s as 8 x 15” gunned ships.
 
The issue is that Italy was still somewhat a neutral until very late on (with hopes for a WW1 alliance to join GB, France & Italy again) and German had I think said to GB that S&G would have 11" guns, so it's far worse and more than OTL.
The issue is twofold, the main armaments, and the reported tonnage/actual tonnage.

In this alt history, Germany has been able to sidestep all the restrictions on naval guns/turrets by working in Japan, so 15" guns and twin turrets to put them in already exist before the first pair are laid down, and that being the case, there won't be any thoughts of the Germans building 11" guns for her first post war battleships, especially seeing the two Italian ships laid down in 1934.

About the tonnage, guessing the actual end displacement of a ship that isn't even complete is not anything like an exact science, and while the historical Bismarck class was some 51 feet longer than the Scharnhorst class ships, they were also about 68 feet shorter than HMS Hood, so at some point, probably at least after the first ships are completed, the UK might trip to the excessive tonnage, but in the age of the mark one eyeball, who knows. Alternatively, the discovery could be made earlier, but not on they day the keel's are laid down, and not before the things are actually able to float.
 
This is another attempt at providing a table that "Shows it all" for just the Germans, for all 7 of their historical heavy ships. If it looks good, and everyone can see things clearly, then I will also start to and in all three of the other European Navies heavy ships (Maybe even the USN and IJN if time and motivation holds up).
Gistorical ger ships.jpg

Are the names and dates clear?
Let me know if this works, or what needs changed. Right now, I cannot figure out how to make the table borders white, so anyone that knows how to do that, please feel free to jump in and tell me.

Also, anyone got any ideas for the launch dates for the alt twins?
 
Other options for the tables, I'm not yet satisfied with the look, and so am continuing to try different things. One thing I want in the table is to show the time spent tying up a slipway before launch, and then the remaining time the ship is still under construction, other than on a slipway. Deutschland for instance, was laid down on 5 Feb, 1929, was launched on 19 May, 1931, and then completed on 1 April, 1933. This is one way to try to show that in table form:
PB1.jpg

As long as a ship's name in not longer than will fit in the time she was building up to launch, I can separate it's construction time as shown, which provides a visual aid as to when that slipway is open for new projects, and this tells us...

Laid down to launch
2 years + 3 months + 14 days
Launch to completed
2 years - 1 month - 18 days

Using the above as a math problem, we would assume 4 years + 1 month + 26 days, which would give us a total construction time completion date of 1 April, 1933 (if we treat all months as 30 days long) As {1929+4=1933}, {Feb+1=Mar}, and {5th+26=31 so 1st of April, 1933}. This will not always come out right, but this time, it worked perfectly.

So, is it good enough to just divide the construction time as shown, or would it be best to use different colors, or what?

My suspicions are that the OTL twins were rushed off the slipways historically, to clear the way for the following pair to be laid down as quickly as possible. I don't have any proof of this, however, but I'll cover their times in the next post, as I am still not feeling so great.
 
Top