Optimize the RN for WWII

[alspug]

As much as I love the Courageous class conversions they definately fit the bill of a silk purse out of a sows ear. They suffered as inadequate conversions.

3 CV's built from the ground up as replacements even if built to same displacement and reusing their machinery would be superior in every way and able to have proper torpedo bulges added at first refit and have suitable hangar and fuel/ammo provison.

So my idea is for all three of the Fishers Folly's to be scrapped with machinery earmarked for the new fleet carriers under construction.

roughly speaking you should be able to get 3 Ark Royal sized ships running 29 to 30 knots on the old engines. Then you build three more with better engines followed by the first refit which gives the class proper torpedo bulges and some more power to maintain the speed.

As for guns. This is where you plonk as many DP guns as possible using your new 4.7 or 5 inch gun. Add in spots for light AA ahead of time and appropriate magazines.

This gives the RN 6 very capable carriers by mid 1930. Each with a 60 to 70 aircraft capacity and built with damage control and torpedo damage in mind.

With a larger CV aircraft complement the number of FAA squadrons will justify taking control of FAA. Escorts for CV's to be full flottila of destroyers with ASDIC and DP guns along with either a Battleship/Battlecruiser or a Cruiser squadron. ie 1 heavy and 2 light.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

honestly why bother reusing the engines when your under a tonnage cap? especially given they saw some war service and the tech in them in fairly outdated and moreover less fuel efficient

 

[jsb]

What gives you the basis for saying that the funds aren’t there? Both Nomisyrruc and myself have presented plans that have ample funding for them under the extra granted in the OP. How on Earth isn’t there time? 1928-1934 is 7 years, providing ample time to build the carriers at a steady rate.

Simply saying something can or can’t be done isn’t an argument and doesn’t make it so. Nor does invoking hindsight for whatever reason.

6 ships are better than 2 when it comes to numbers and there simply isn’t a need for keeping experimental hulls when there are new and better ships aplenty.

So my idea is for all three of the Fishers Folly's to be scrapped with machinery earmarked for the new fleet carriers under construction.

Great, if you can build 6 pre end of WNT/ OTL 2LNT then it's great for RN.

I dont think scraping the old ship is really sensible (or reusing engines) as any that you can drag to 1936 when the fleet total limits end, will suddenly get to serve into WWII and still be perfectly useful CVs even if not as good a new build still far better than not having them.

Ships like Argus and Hermes are easy to repurpose as 2nd line ships and cheap to run, and nobody will question them being kept as unarmed transports, so it's really just Eagle, C, G & F and how many of them you can keep? This is actually helped by RN being under weight early on, so it doesn't need to scrap early on,
135,000 tons but, - 14,450 Argus - 10,850 Hermes - 21,850 Eagle, - 19,180 C (normal on wiki?) - 19,180 G (normal on wiki?) - 22,500 F (unsure if standard?) = 108,010 with 26,990 spare.

This is makes using C,G &F engines early on really questionable as I think you can keep them and only "replace" them very late in 30s, so they only need to be scraped on 31 Dec 1936 and then just go and sit at the scrapyard and for some reason dont get scraped..... /s

I think you can plan to retire Argus, Hermes and Eagle with maybe only Eagle actually being scraped just to show willing that you are actually following the rules and Argus & Hermes becoming 2nd line repair and aircraft & army transport ships with a big wooden deck house & crane built on the deck, so you can't fly off them..... That gives you only C,G & F in service for 60,860t so 74,140t free under WNT to build the first 3 of RN CVs.

 

[brazen]

Use C&G as training ships in lieu of an old battleship, argue that we need two training ships due to the worldwide nature of the Empire.

A light refit in the mid 30s to upgrade AA guns and Directors, you could probably fit 5 4" twins per side, 3 or 4 quad Pom Poms and you have a useful escort for most of WW2, either in the South Atlantic or working alongside a carrier.

Thier size becomes useful later in the war as they will have room for command suites and radar due to the big hull.

Formidable becomes a training carrier to replace Argus, use the freed up tonnage to build 2 or 3 proto Ark Royals in the late 20s.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Great, if you can build 6 pre end of WNT/ OTL 2LNT then it's great for RN.

I dont think scraping the old ship is really sensible (or reusing engines) as any that you can drag to 1936 when the fleet total limits end, will suddenly get to serve into WWII and still be perfectly useful CVs even if not as good a new build still far better than not having them.

Ships like Argus and Hermes are easy to repurpose as 2nd line ships and cheap to run, and nobody will question them being kept as unarmed transports, so it's really just Eagle, C, G & F and how many of them you can keep? This is actually helped by RN being under weight early on, so it doesn't need to scrap early on,
135,000 tons but, - 14,450 Argus - 10,850 Hermes - 21,850 Eagle, - 19,180 C (normal on wiki?) - 19,180 G (normal on wiki?) - 22,500 F (unsure if standard?) = 108,010 with 26,990 spare.

This is makes using C,G &F engines early on really questionable as I think you can keep them and only "replace" them very late in 30s, so they only need to be scraped on 31 Dec 1936 and then just go and sit at the scrapyard and for some reason dont get scraped..... /s

I think you can plan to retire Argus, Hermes and Eagle with maybe only Eagle actually being scraped just to show willing that you are actually following the rules and Argus & Hermes becoming 2nd line repair and aircraft & army transport ships with a big wooden deck house & crane built on the deck, so you can't fly off them..... That gives you only C,G & F in service for 60,860t so 74,140t free under WNT to build the first 3 of RN CVs.

Scrapping ships is the last option, but certainly clearing out Furious, Argus, Eagle and Hermes are the beginning, at least insofar as allowances up to the end of 1935 (intended expiry of LNT regime and the associated WNT cap). Spare tonnage gives AR 1 Furious gives AR 2, Hermes and Argus gives AR 3, Eagle gives AR 4 and then C and G give ARs 5 and 6.

Once it is 1936, having C, G and F around is the base line I’d go for. Losing Argus and Hermes and replacing them with purpose built auxiliaries (free from treaty dealings/limitations) isn’t a big loss for me, whilst Eagle is a bit old to bother flogging for too long.

C and G can then be ‘resurrected’ for the second/third line role of training, support and transport during peacetime, with Furious being in reserve for the same intent. Scrapping the older buggers makes it easier to squeeze C/G/F through.

I don’t think it necessary to try and rebadge them as training ships, as that can be done by Iron Duke or an R, depending on how many new battleships can be squeezed out through a different LNT regime.

My general rule is that the more new build ships - battleships, carriers, cruisers and destroyers - the better. The dosh is there and building new tonnage helps tithe the industry over during any locust years, as well as being more effective come kick off.

 

[Dorknought]

Im not sure if you would have got them to agree on that list, they are by far the best ships on it..... the rest are very old and slow.....?

This was an auxiliary (like the large USN Destroyer and Sub tenders):

The need for HMS Unicorn was recognised in 1934-35 as an aircraft maintenance ship - the first of its kind in any navy. Perhaps C & G can be converted to this configuration to help maintain and service aircraft on the 6 Ark Royals leaving them to maximise their airgroups.

 

[jsb]

This was an auxiliary (like the large USN Destroyer and Sub tenders):

But that was very late (she was not completed until during WW2, so treaties are already failed and was laid down after 2LNT) and after the quantitive limit ended, so did not matter what it was as RN could have any number of real CVs anyway...?

Keeping the 15" LLC on the exempt list next to the monitors and old ACs at 1LNT might be a far harder sell to USN and IJN.....

 

[Spencersj345.346]

But that was very late (she was not completed until during WW2, so treaties are already failed and was laid down after 2LNT) and after the quantitive limit ended, so did not matter what it was as RN could have any number of real CVs anyway...?

Keeping the 15" LLC on the exempt list next to the monitors and old ACs at 1LNt might be a far harder sell to USN and IJN.....

Especially if they've been upgraded to have armor worth a damm. At least as they where built in otl. Had they gone with one of the other options presented to fisher ie 8 9.2" guns and a six or so inch belt and less so as high speed monitors hull design wise especially draft....honestly the RN wouldn't have given those up if the pocket battleships from Germany where being built.

 

[jsb]

I think the way to get it past 1LNT would be to give up Iron Duke as the training ship, IJN wanted to keep its ability to get back its 4 BCs by reactivating the 4th Kongo, Hiei and would have probably been willing to go with it if RN wanted the LLCs as the trade-off? I think US was in sufficiently hard money saving mode in 1929/30 and knew the LLC are sufficiently weak that it might well be ok....

 

[marathag]

I think the way to get it past 1LNT would be to give up Iron Duke as the training ship, IJN wanted to keep its ability to get back its 4 BCs by reactivating the 4th Kongo, Hiei and would have probably been willing to go with it if RN wanted the LLCs as the trade-off?

They would jump at the chance to retain their BC in exchange for the RN keeping the Weird Sisters.

 

[jsb]

They would jump at the chance to retain their BC in exchange for the RN keeping the Weird Sisters.

No thats OTL, they kept it as the training ship fully intending to refit it come wartime..... if RN scrapes Iron duke and then asks to put the LLC as the training/exempt ships or ask IJN to scrap Hiei.... then I think RN gets to keep them? After all, why keep 13.5" ship for training on 15" guns....? They might have to pull out one of the mounts, but that just means they can start work on refitting them for more elevation if they have the money?

Note this is all a bit of a distraction from main pod I think? (and this is already a long complex threat to follow!)

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

But that was very late (she was not completed until during WW2, so treaties are already failed and was laid down after 2LNT) and after the quantitive limit ended, so did not matter what it was as RN could have any number of real CVs anyway...?

Keeping the 15" LLC on the exempt list next to the monitors and old ACs at 1LNT might be a far harder sell to USN and IJN.....

3 Unicorns optimised for flight operations, to replace Argus, Eagle and Hermes, which get repurposed in other roles would come in handy.

 

[jsb]

3 Unicorns optimised for flight operations, to replace Argus, Eagle and Hermes, which get repurposed in other roles would come in handy.

With hindsight, are Unicorns not too much (for cheap repair /transports) and too little (for fleet CVs) at the same time? Ie just go straight for Majestic class Aircraft Carrier light fleets, that are cheaper and quicker to build?

 

[Spencersj345.346]

honestly having the plans for the majestic and maybe centaur classes or a near equivalent on file for use when war breaks out lying around seems like a solid idea

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I’m for starting CVLs prior to the war, not just in design, but construction, provided the other priorities are addressed first.

Laying down 4 each in 38 and 39 is the absolute best case scenario, as it kicks the main part of their cost under war budgets, wartime aircraft production and wartime manning. Call it the ‘running start’ principle.

There was consideration of what would become the CVE niche for a few years prewar, so putting plans, designs and ideal merchant ships for conversion in place is not an unwise measure. If the actual conversion process can start even a bit before September 1939, it is a bonus and force multiplier down the line.

The likes of Unicorn and Triumph as types/roles are nice to have, but I’d put them behind the above and all the rest in the pecking order.

If, in an absolutely ideal situation, there are a number of MACs/CVEs ready for ASW in 1939, then there is no need to even contemplate being forced to risk fleet CVs for roles out of keeping with their purpose.

 

[alspug]

Depending upon the hull form selected for your Light Carrier and the displacement of your Cruiser construction it may be worth having a nascent Heavy cruiser hull able to be used as light cv or heavy CA if large enough displacement.

I would be looking at a wider hull form than the standard Cruiser and built from the Keel up in the same fashion as the Saipan Class CVL.

The Centaur Class CVL was fairly effective and a good place to start even if they look fairly large lol. At least you know your going to get some Jets aboard in the early years.

 

[Schlock]

When you compare the RN 1942 Light Fleet Carrier to the USN Saipan CVL , the only point in the Saipan's favour was their 33 knot top speed, as the RN CVL was let down by a top speed of 24 knots on a two shaft 40,000 shp powerplant compared to the four shaft 120,000 shp plant of the Saipans.

Easiest fix for that is to design the 1942 CVL with a four shaft 80,000 shp steam plant, which would improve the top speed up around 28 knots, which is what they did for the follow on Centaurs. The downside is that you're basically going to reduce either your CVL or your Light Cruiser numbers to do it, but then, with the more capable earlier design being closer to the Centaurs, you're not going to need to build them and they cancelled four of them anyway.

Basically you'd probably need to cancel the Centaur Class CVL's and the Minotaur CL's to provide the machinery for the earlier ships.

It will also likely kill the post war Tiger Class Cruisers as well, which probably wouldn't be a bad thing and on the other hand, the more capable 1942 CVL's are likely going to be even more in demand for smaller navies due to their increased capabilities.