Optimize the RN for WWII

[tomo pauk]

apart from the two seat Hurricanes (isn't that just a Henley?) and Spitfires.

Henley have had a new, longer and deeper fuselage, and a bigger wing (even when compared with already big wing on the Hurricane, that served as a 'part donor' for the Henley's wing) - all of what meant it was about 20 mph slower than the Hurricane.
The 2-seat Hurricane should've looked something like this, plus beard radiator to clear up the volume under the cockpit for an additional fuel tank. Backseater is the navigator, not instructor.

Supermarine 2-seater: the Type 305 looks part, sans the turret for the FAA.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The 2-seat Hurricane should've looked something like this, plus beard radiator to clear up the volume under the cockpit for an additional fuel tank. Backseater is the navigator, not instructor.

This with appropriate canopies. Probably side opening.

 

[Driftless]

(snip)
The 2-seat Hurricane should've looked something like this, plus beard radiator to clear up the volume under the cockpit for an additional fuel tank. Backseater is the navigator, not instructor.
(snip)

Pre-date the leading edge radiator from the Mossie, for the Sea Hurricane? A bit more streamlined to offset the weight gains and better water landing behavior?

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Hmmm I trust building ark royal bigger and adding a sister or two would be on everyone's list?

 

[naraic]

Hmmm I trust building ark royal bigger and adding a sister or two would be on everyone's list?

You want to move your carrier building under treaty constraints back imo.

Ark Royal could have been built under the naval treaties at any stage previously and she could have had a sister too under treaty limits. Build in 32 or 33 or build 1 in 28 and one in 33.

I'd be replacing with a 1928 carrier and a 1933 carrier.

2 Ark Royals in 35/36 would hit the time when naval construction infrastructure is at the edge in many ways. Britain was buying Armour Plate from Czecholovakia because of domestic shortages.

While Ark Royal wasn't the most heavily armoured carrier the British ever built moving a carriers worth of armour, secondary guns etc out of the time in which construction infrastructure is under pressure makes a lot of sense. Especially if you are building another one of them.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Huh it occurs to me with the bigger budget it might be possible to give the armor and turret production industry at least some of the subsidies they had in the 20s into the 30s so the problems the RN had as related to the shortages of the mid to late 30s on that front might not be as bad...

 

[tomo pauk]

Pre-date the leading edge radiator from the Mossie, for the Sea Hurricane? A bit more streamlined to offset the weight gains and better water landing behavior?

Yes - a bit less drag and weight, less easly to dig in the water, counterweight for the increased rear weight due to the rear cockpit.

 

[naraic]

Huh it occurs to me with the bigger budget might be able to give the armor and turret production industry at least some of the subsidies they had in the 20s into the 30s so the problems the RN had as related to the shortages of the mid to late 30s on that front might not be as bad...

You might be right. Personally I don't like subsidies.

Instead just place an order (if not blocked for other reasons). I'd rather give out £6 million of orders than £6 million of subsidies.

There was a lot of different shortages in the mid to late 30s that were hidden by the armour and turret shortage.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

On another note I assume we can all agree the 70° elevation for the main guns of counties was dumb and added needless weight and cost?

 

[naraic]

On another note I assume we can all agree the 70° elevation for the main guns of counties was dumb and added needless weight and cost?

With the elevation rate and training rate of the guns the 70 degree elevation was ridiculous.

If the practical elevation and training rate was the original design estimate (double the actual rate) I could see potential value (not at the time of construction but come ww2) of the 70 degree elevation but not as built.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Probably ditto for the 6" guns that tried to be DP.

 

[naraic]

Probably ditto for the 6" guns that tried to be DP.

Terrible elevation and training speed.

They also had the problem of the shells being too heavy for the rate of fire they wanted.

 

[CV12Hornet]

You want to move your carrier building under treaty constraints back imo.

Ark Royal could have been built under the naval treaties at any stage previously and she could have had a sister too under treaty limits. Build in 32 or 33 or build 1 in 28 and one in 33.

I'd be replacing with a 1928 carrier and a 1933 carrier.

2 Ark Royals in 35/36 would hit the time when naval construction infrastructure is at the edge in many ways. Britain was buying Armour Plate from Czecholovakia because of domestic shortages.

While Ark Royal wasn't the most heavily armoured carrier the British ever built moving a carriers worth of armour, secondary guns etc out of the time in which construction infrastructure is under pressure makes a lot of sense. Especially if you are building another one of them.

I’d love to, but the money constraints are pretty serious. Especially with all the other stuff I want to do.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

I’d love to, but the money constraints are pretty serious. Especially with all the other stuff I want to do.

Even with a 15% larger budget?

 

[CV12Hornet]

Even with a 15% larger budget?

That’s about seven and a half, 8 million pounds more money to play with, annually. You probably could pull it off with that much extra cash. I guess I just didn’t want to have to break out the spreadsheets.

Now I’m tempted to try and ditch first London, too, if that’s how much extra money I get.

 

[naraic]

Even with a 15% larger budget?

The Royal Navy is a beast that could absorb all costs imaginable if you think that planning for a war with Germany Italy and Japan (with France and Norway under German control) is reasonable.

I went for the carriers early to get them out of the the way. They are the biggest ticket items that could be moved earlier in time.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

That’s about seven and a half, 8 million pounds more money to play with, annually. You probably could pull it off with that much extra cash. I guess I just didn’t want to have to break out the spreadsheets.

I've had mine out for a thread on Secret Projects.

The average for the 14 financial years ending 31st March 1936 was £56,003,476 which with an increase of 10-15% is an average of £5,600,000 to £8,400,000 extra per annum.

Now I’m tempted to try and ditch first London, too, if that’s how much extra money I get.

The good news is that there's no restrictions on the USN either. The bad news is that there'll be no restrictions on the IJN either. More bad news is that if there's still an Anglo German Naval Agreement and the percentages are the same that means a larger Kriegsmarine or at least there is in theory because it wasn't able to reach the Agreement's limits by the end of 1939 IOTL so it won't be able to reach the limits in the TTL version of the Agreement either. I wrote if there's still an AGNA because HMG might feel strong enough to take a firmer line against Nazi Germany ITTL.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

That’s about seven and a half, 8 million pounds more money to play with, annually. You probably could pull it off with that much extra cash. I guess I just didn’t want to have to break out the spreadsheets.

Now I’m tempted to try and ditch first London, too, if that’s how much extra money I get.

Alas can't ditch 1st LNT just make it a bit less stupid.

 

[Jellico]

You want to move your carrier building under treaty constraints back imo.

Ark Royal could have been built under the naval treaties at any stage previously and she could have had a sister too under treaty limits. Build in 32 or 33 or build 1 in 28 and one in 33.

I'd be replacing with a 1928 carrier and a 1933 carrier.

2 Ark Royals in 35/36 would hit the time when naval construction infrastructure is at the edge in many ways. Britain was buying Armour Plate from Czecholovakia because of domestic shortages.

While Ark Royal wasn't the most heavily armoured carrier the British ever built moving a carriers worth of armour, secondary guns etc out of the time in which construction infrastructure is under pressure makes a lot of sense. Especially if you are building another one of them.

C&G recommissioned in 1928 and 1930. Ark Royal was built on their lessons. The designs for an early 30s carrier were basically Courageous class, with all its faults. Much as with the Warspite vs QE rebuilds, there are risks to going too early.

You might be right. Personally I don't like subsidies.

Instead just place an order (if not blocked for other reasons). I'd rather give out £6 million of orders than £6 million of subsidies.

There was a lot of different shortages in the mid to late 30s that were hidden by the armour and turret shortage.

I was thinking about this this morning. Drach has a theory the Counties were built for-not-with a heavier armor belt. Whether true or not a steady drumbeat of 4" armor would be useful.


Honestly the big thing I would change with hindsight is building for a 3 power conflict rather than a 2 power conflict. That is going to force tough decisions and possibly redirect the navy to look at sea denial rather than control. It will also force innovation and could be a spur to costal command as well as the fleet air arm under navy control at a sensible date.

 

[tomo pauk]

FAA, that should get to pick their toys much earlier than it was the case historically, should notify Bristol engine company that they have a good choice of 900-1100 HP engines in the second half of 1930s, and the next engine type required needs to offer at least 30% greater power. That removes Taurus from the picture, thus Bristol is best advised to press on with Hercules and later with Centaurus (as much as that can be permitted once ww2 breaks out). Hercules could use a better supercharger (same with Pegasus), but even as-is it is a step ahead for 1940 and on.

Guns - FAA will need to find a supplier of .50 HMGs (Vickers?) and 20 mm cannons (Oerlikon?) ASAP. Hard kill is much more needed for the naval defenders than it was the case with land-based defenders.

Dive bomber: Skua + 1000 HP Pegasus is an almost-SBD. Hopefully 1000 lb bomb load could be carried. Next-gen type should be much faster, talk something like Fulmar with a 2-speed supercharged Merlin, or a Sea Hurricane.